Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 69

< Wikipedia:Simple talk

Userright removal request.

A while back we gave User:Razorflame the importer right. At the moment, he is no longer active on the project. I request removal of the right with the side note that he may get it back at any time upon his return. Respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have the means to remove the flag from him. This has to go to Meta. Chenzw  Talk  06:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. The steward will require a community consensus to remove. We have to make one here... then once the community blesses this, I will go and post a request on Meta with this discussion linked. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to have to remove this flag. Its not really a dangerous flag like admin. -Djsasso (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is... it permits historical revisionism via direct upload of xml revisions. That is, one with the right can "change history". This is a risk. NonvocalScream (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see that as something likely to happen if someone hacked his account, but whatever I suppose. -Djsasso (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal per security issues outlined above. Chenzw  Talk  07:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support if he comes back, he can request it again. Exert 07:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this, it's a completely harmless right and in the event his account is hacked any uploads can be undone very quickly and then the account can be blocked and the right removed. Completely pointless section. Goblin 11:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
Agree with Goblin. There is no point in removing rights unnecessarily. Pmlineditor I ♥ Gobby! 11:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be difficult to find and remove any historical revisionism. As a side note... BG7, if you continue to assume bad faith, you could be blocked for disruption. It is not for you to say what sections are pointless. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any ABF here. If the case of ABF is not in this section, please move it elsewhere. Chenzw  Talk  15:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stating an editor made a pointless section is bad faith assumptions. He stated "Completely pointless section.". That is bad faith assumptions... and is only a small part in a string of recent incivility. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Each person is entitled to his own opinion. If you do not agree with what he thinks, I can only ask you to ignore. He only thinks that this section is pointless and is not in any way against you. Chenzw  Talk  15:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are entitled, but must be responsible for pointed remarks. If I were to go around the wiki calling your page starts "pointless" I could expect to be warned. Disruptive editing is just that, disruptive... be it vandalism... or just a failure to collaborate professionally. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just think he was being uncivil when he said it, not necessarily an ABF. -Djsasso (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has Razorflame been contacted about this? Maybe he could directly consent, or give us some other assurance. -- Mentifisto 01:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just e-mailed him. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

I want to be renamed from User:DNA to User:Endeavor User account "Endeavor" is not registered. Can any administrator try that?--
 :: Deoxyribonucleic Acid . 10:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you file a request on this page please? - Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


no body responds on chu,,,, so i decided to write here.....i have anyhow written there--
 :: Deoxyribonucleic Acid . 17:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They will do, be patient. —MC8 (b · t) 21:44, Wednesday July 22 2009 (UTC) (I ♥ Kennedy)
This has already been   Not done'd on both your talk and CHU. Goblin 10:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

Kremlin and an unsourced statement

I am asking opinion on this statement and whether it should be kept, Stalin's death also came exactly 13 years later to the minute of signing Katyn execution orders on March 5 1940 at 9:50pm. The page was fully protected for a few moments after I removed it and it was reverted by the user that added it. It is unsourced and the statement does not appear at the Joseph Stalin and Katyn Massacre articles at enWP, and at the Joseph Stalin article here. Threads that relate to this topic maybe found here(user who added statement), here (admin who protected page), and here (where I posted a copy of this message). Griffinofwales (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note: The page is now unprotected. I also note the other editor is blocked temporary and discussion regarding the unsourced statement is taking place on Talk:Kremlin. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did some copyediting, added a fact, and left a note on the talk page. --Eptalon (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User is not blocked temporarily. It is an indefinite block for incivility and sockpuppetry. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of CM16

ChrisitanMan16 (aka Aaron) requested that his username on SEWP be changed to Christianrocker90. This has now been done. fr33kman talk 06:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins automatically get bureaucrat status after a given time?

Hello there,

On IRC there was a discussion about "managing" our big population of admins a little more. In the context of this discussion, there was the idea of making it very easy for an admin to get the bureaucrat status, after they have been actively involved with this wikipedia for some time. Since it would be easy to get bureaucrat status, it should also be easy to revoke this status on candidates that go inactive.

The current proposal would be:

  1. Six months of active contributions for crat status; Awarding would be at the request of the candidate.
  2. Two months of unannounced inactivity, for the flag to be revoked.

Details would of course have to be worked out. In my opinion, the time should be long enough that the admins can show their commitment to the community. There were several admins that turned inactive after they were awarded the flag.

Anyway, this is just a short notice; comments are welcome (both ways), so that we can decide if this is a worthwile idea. --Eptalon (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that getting a 'cratship after X number of months will stop freshly promoted admins from eventually wandering away from the project. I don't have a counter-solution to that problem, I just don't think this proposal solves anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. I've said it before and I'll say it again, "mainspace is where we will live or die as a project." I know this is easy for me to say being the most newly elected crat, but it remains true. Dedication and belief in the project is what is needed to make this grow. I've got no firm feelings on numbers and ratios of crats:admins or admins:editors, but what I do have firm feelings on is that first and foremost people should be mainspace editors. Without that, we are not really making an encyclopedia, just a website. fr33kman talk 00:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need more crats, we need more users who help in mainspace. Barras (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm of a split mind about this one. There is no harm whatsoever in users becoming Bureaucrats - it doesn't matter how many we have. But by the same token, we need more mainspace editors, and it does seem as if this wiki is turning into a hat-collection website - i'll grab some (anonymous) stats later today on this - i'm sure it would be an interesting read about how many of our admins are actually that active and build the encyclopedia. As for the time limits, I think that both are fine, but that the 6 months to get 'crat should be consistent activity - i.e. not getting admin, disappearing for 6 months and then expecting 'crat. Such cases should have to go through an RfB IMO. So, all in all, i'm not 100% sure that this will actually solve anything. Yes, I think overall it's a good idea, as it would also cut down on the time taken for people making RfBs (giving more time for encyclopedia building), but i'm not 100% sure that it will cause people to stick around. And if it does - what's to stop them just leaving after they get 'crat. Furthermore, what constitutes activity? Some idling on IRC, a couple of RfX votes etc, or actually getting some DYKs, GAs etc etc? This needs to be defined and not just left to any old 'crat to decide - because every 'crat will have their own views on what constitutes activity. Ok, a bit of a mixed bag there, but I just wanted to get my thoughts out! I'll probably add more later - especially when i've got some stats later. Regards, Goblin 10:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
If you look at the current regulars, I think 10 to 20 mainspace edits (excluding discussion/DYK noms,GA/VGA discussions) a day would not be too much to ask. This makes between 300 and 600 such edits/month. Any admin actions would of course also not count towards these edits. But such things do need to be talked about once we get a favorable pulbic opinion on it. There is no use defining if the idea is worthless.--Eptalon (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wholeheartedly oppose any automatic granting of crat status based on any kind of firm contribution level (quota). These access levels are not, and were never intended to be any kind of reward... and this contribution requirement does encourage just that. NonvocalScream (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually nothing but just the same cycle over and over again. Once we grant (automatic) 'crat-ship, we are going to have bureaucrats becoming inactive. We can't possibly give them higher rights (checkuser, oversight, steward?!). This "reward-like" system shouldn't be implemented. Chenzw  Talk  05:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to completely throw "reward" and "activity" out of the window. Granting automatic 'cratship should not be an incentive in any form, and 'crats and normal users should be able to oppose any request to trigger a standard RfB. Any "automatic" request needs to be requested to a 'crat, and we can merely put in a clause stating that it must remain for 24 hours without opposition. If there is opposition, then an RfB should be triggered. This way, it is not seen as a reward nor a right, but merely as simplifying and speeding up process. Thoughts? Goblin 18:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]

Oversighters

  Resolved. Elections postponed till late August/early September.

There is a marked increase in hiding revisions, and suppressing user names and logs. Can we elect local oversighters? Two, or three? Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the elections are happening in September. Read the latest edition of Simple News. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... I need a subscription. I'll go read it... but if I could get it delivered to my talk... Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we've agreed to have local oversighters and to elect them in late August / early September to let people who are on vacation to partake in the elections. In the mean-time feel free to bug the Stewards for oversight request. It is part of why they were elected afterall! :-) fr33kman talk 03:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had to bug one today... and I actually think I was bugging him. :) Is there a place where the nominations are being cast? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are waiting until August/September. Did you find the article? Griffinofwales (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No... I looked at the last two issues (i think), is there a direct link? Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shappy's article in Issue 10 located here. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I said early August. Why wait? Shappy talk 04:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else said late August/early September (not now, but before), and it made more sense than early August. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care when, but I think 85-90% of the regulars should be on wiki before we start elections. It's only fair after all. :) fr33kman talk 04:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as there is such a need, and we do have active users about, it might be better to get it done sooner than later.
Also, I think that the oversighters should be connected to IRC for easy access. Shappy talk 04:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not rush this again. Keep in mind that there are certain minimums that need to be met; if we're not at our strongest (editor-wise), it won't matter when we hold the elections.
As for reporting, on en.wiki we get Oversight requests via a mailing list (as well as IRC and direct requests). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EVula is correct... there is going to be a basic minimum of support. It would be good to wait until the project is at it's most active. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think it's recognized that I am a major driving force behind the push for oversighters, but we need to have enough editors to support it. There is no URGENT need to elect them at this moment in time. We can wait until we have a full compliment of editors on wiki. fr33kman talk 05:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please wait until early September and make an exemption these votes, that they can run for 14 days. So that there are better changes to reach the 25 needed votes. And currently it is summer and some editers are on vancances. We will have a better result if we wait a bit. Barras (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the elections will not be taking place until September, possibly, a page has been created here for potential candidates to make themselves known and allow questioning from other users. Please give your thoughts. Goblin 18:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]

P(V)GA changes

I propose that separate pages be used for each P(V)GA proposals and votings. For example, the first PGA proposal of Earth will be Wikipedia:Proposed Good Articles/Earth 1 which will contain both the comments and also the voting. The next PGA will be Wikipedia:Proposed Good Articles/Earth 2. This will help us change the format to that of RfD, and thus make archiving simpler. Regards, Pmlineditor 13:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I'd oppose this, as it just overcomplicates things and doesn't add anything to the proposals. If anything, we should be removing the vote section - or at the very least changing it's name - and basing the promotion and demotion of articles on their condition - a really crappy article could easily be promoted because it gets lots of support. There's nothing wrong with the current archiving system, it's simple enough as it is. Goblin 13:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]
Yes, it is "!vote" not "vote" really. Consensus can't be counted. Pmlineditor 13:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm a bit lazy, I think this would be only more work. I think we don't need for every proposal an extra page. Barras (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it definitely is a vote, and not a !vote. Check the instructions out. But at the moment, with the limited traffic at P(V)GA, no need to split into separate pages. Once we get into double figures at each page, let's reassess. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read what i'm saying, yes, it is a vote, but should not be a vote. I just not promoted Jupiter despite it having the required percentages as it's in a poor condition still (well, not poor, but not VGA material). We need to fix this. Goblin 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

geolocate?

  Resolved.

At enWP, there is an option for Geolocate at the bottom of IP talk pages. It gives the location of the ISP that the IP uses. Here at simple, it doesn't show that. Could someone change that? Griffinofwales (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came up with a design a few months ago. Let me dig it out. —MC8 (b · t) 21:10, Thursday July 23 2009 (UTC)
Here it is. It needs testing with smaller screens though. —MC8 (b · t) 21:11, Thursday July 23 2009 (UTC)
Exert just put it in. I didn't even know that page existed. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imo MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon‎(and the others) should be changed to the one in MC8's sandbox. Exert 21:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict) I just ran a test, and it links to the wrong page. It should link here (I think). Griffinofwales (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Exert. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Fixed sorry 'bout that. Exert 02:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but what about the new design? Griffinofwales (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for others to comment. If nobody else comments/objects in a day or so I'll add it. Exert 02:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[unindenting] I'd say go ahead and do it; we've got it at en.wiki, so it's not like this is some brand-new feature that's being added. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whois basically does the same thing anyway. -- Mentifisto 10:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geolocate has already been added. We're talking about changing the design. Exert 19:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done new design added. Exert 20:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a template

Hi there! Can some have a look at this template? I don't know how to fix it. Thanks Barras (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed, please review. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Looks fine. Thank you. --Barras (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, anytime. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, is the template really needed, given the existence of {{Maroon 5}}? (which has a broader scope) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, probably we should merge the templates? --Barras (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went to merge the {{Live albums by Maroon 5}} into {{Maroon 5}}, but the latter already contained all of the links contained in the former. Thus, I nominated Live albums by Maroon 5 for deletion (see Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Template:Live albums by Maroon 5). hmwithτ 16:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

about user:79.157.57.156

Hello. I am User:Nameless User editing articles about football. Because I am not good at English, I am sorry if grammar is wrong.

I want you to confirm it. Does the Santillana A.D. which 79.157.57.156 made exist? I want you to delete this article if this club does not exist.

In addition, I think that these footballers which this user made do not exist.

I think that there is a possibility that most articles and templates that this user made are incorrect articles and templates.

I suggest that we delete all articles and templates that this user made just to make sure.--Nameless User (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not very familar with football/soccer. Could you please add QD-tags to the creations of the user, which were incorrect? I don't want to delete the articles/templates, if they are correct. Best --Barras (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia doesn't have an article, and {{Santillana squad}} appears to be a fake; none of the players listed mention Santillana in their articles (either here or on the English project). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted now all articles with QD tag by Nameless User. I used a special delete reason with permlink to this section. If there was an false positive (articles which could be useful) just ping to restore or ask on WP:RFU. Thus, all done per AGF. Barras (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for your quick measures.--Nameless User (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Create the Wikilympics

I propose that we create the first Wikilympics. Its the alternative for the failed WikiCup. It'll follow the same rules of the WikiCup but there will be some difference: IP's are allowed to participate, Two flags for one person will be allowed, more points for each round, add "on this day..." for expansion of it, help for different wikis and uploading pictures. The winner will get a medal.

For More questions, respond on my talkpage. Secret Saturdays (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much time wasted on administration that could be better spent on articles which is why the wikicup was cancelled. -Djsasso (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Djsasso. It's just a different version of the wikicup. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of "Patroller" right or similar

Hey all,

Just wondering what people think about getting a "patroller" right added, that enables those with the flag to mark new pages as patrolled, and also to have their changes automatically patrolled. It was something I frequently did when I had the admin bit, and although I still do it I cannot physically mark the pages as "patrolled".

If no new right was wanted, it could probably be grouped with Rollbacker instead.

Thoughts?

Regards,

Goblin 09:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Think there is some confusion about what the flag will do, so I will clarify. On the most basic level (which could be bundled with rollback/autoconfirmed) it allows non-admins to "patrol" new pages that are created. Unpatrolled pages appear as yellow on Special:NewPages, and when clicked via that a "Mark page as patrolled" link appears at the bottom of the page. When this link is clicked it patrols the page, making a log entry and removing the yellow background. Several admins (Exert springs to mind) already do this, and it is giving this functionality to non-admins as well. I personally see it as a time-saving activity as I did and do patrol new pages (often finding unpatrolled pages that are copyvios/unsuitable but have not been dealt with, so don't say it's not needed!), only to then find that the pages are then patrolled again by an admin as I have no button to click. On a deeper level, an "autopatrol" flag can be added to this, and this would be where a seperate right should be activated. In this case it allows the user's new pages to be automatically patrolled (like an administrator's are), again saving time as edits by users that clearly do not need watching do not have to be patrolled (like an admin). Wikis that spring to mind with the initial form are ENWP. In no way do the "patrol" flags "hide" any new pages. They can still be patrolled by any user via Special:NewPages or Special:RecentChanges, they just don't have a button to press to say that they've been patrolled. Indeed, for admins there would be little or no change, except that other users would start to appear as already patrolled. Hope this has cleared things up, if you need more info just poke me. Goblin 18:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]
I still don't think it is needed on such a small wiki, we don't have that many edits in a time frame. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It clearly is needed: Special:Log/patrol scroll down for a bit, and you'll see lots of manual patrols that I did earlier, but were since re-patrolled by Exert. At the very least if it's not needed let's send out the advice that articles will probably have been patrolled... Goblin 19:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]
  • We don't have many non-admin contributors, and most of our unpatrolled new pages/changes come from IPs and new users, who would be ineligible for the right anyway. So it is my opinion that it simply isn't worth it. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We actually do have quite a few non-admin contributors, and why not give something a go? It can't cause any harm, really doesn't matter if only a handful of users have it, and if people don't use it/don't like it it can just be consigned to the depths of the wiki with Uploader, Importer, Transwiki Importer etc etc. Goblin 19:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]
I don't see a backlog of unpatrolled pages. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of the backlog a while back. Exert 20:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, do we routinely have a backlog? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. We have a backlog of "unreviewed" pages as I don't have the capacity to review them. Exert: i'd already looked at most if not all of the ones you cleared out earlier by the way. This is the main reason I am saying we need the flag... (Just say yes already, it's not going to hurt anything as I said above!). Goblin 21:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

(outdent) Maybe I'm not looking in the correct place, but I'm not seeing a backlog of unpatrolled pages. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:NewPages. And no, there isn't at the moment because Exert has reviewed them all by clicking the button. Seriously, we wouldn't request it if it wasn't needed. Goblin 21:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]
There is not a backlog... and there is not a a problem of recurring backlogs. I remain unconvinced that we need this feature. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, it is possible for someone to request something, even if it is unneeded... so that part of your argument does not make sense.NonvocalScream (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BG7 is saying there was a backlog, but it was cleared[by me.] Look at my patrol log starting at 20 June 2009. Exert 21:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but there is no problem with recurring backlogs... I check from time to time. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
multi edit conflict zOMG did you not just read what me and Exert wrote? Yes there is a recurring backlog, but no there isn't a backlog at the moment as Exert has cleared it. Don't just take my word for it, look: http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&dir=prev&hidepatrolled=1. That looks very much like a backlog if you ask me (though yes, I have actually patrolled them but cannot tick them off). Jesus, lighten up. It doesn't even effect you, Mr. God almighty admin sir. Exert, exactly. And in this case, it is needed. Is it me, or is it only admins (those that don't need the tool) that are opposing this? Goblin 21:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]
Deep breath, and relax dude. fr33kman talk 21:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ease up on your personal attacks. Discuss the changes, not the changer. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it cause any harm to the project if we let this happen? If not, why not just go with it. If non-sysops want to have this, why not? fr33kman talk 21:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does personally. There's no compelling reason to hide new articles on a wiki this small. Transparency is key. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For about the 1 millionth time, it does not hide articles. Neither patrol nor auto-patrol do that, and auto-patrol doesn't need to be enabled - it just removes a step. Goblin 21:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
As I understand it, 'confirmed' automatically patrols articles created by users in its group; as a result, users patrolling the unpatrolled pages at Special:NewPages don't see it. it adds another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about confirmed - someone else brought that right up. Yes, with autopatrol (as it seems confirmed has) the edits wouldn't appear as yellow on Special:NewPages, but they would still be there (as i've said all the way through, every new page is on NewPages unless it gets deleted). And as i've also said, we don't need to have the autopatrol put in. Guys, I know what i'm saying/doing - i've been running MediaWiki in one form or another for three years now - honestly, this doesn't hide a single edit. Flood flag/bot flag hides more than this does - I didn't see such a hoo-har about that! Goblin 22:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]
And what's the difference between 'patroller' and 'confirmed'? –Juliancolton | Talk 22:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what the "confirmed" right does, and don't really care as it's not a wiki that i'm on, so I can't really answer this. But i'll get a working example running shortly so people can see what I mean by "nothing is hidden".
I didn't say it had to be bundled with anything, I was giving it as an option. This oppose seems very WP:POINTy to me. :|. Goblin 11:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Something to be aware of is that pages marked not patrolled aren't necessarily unpatrolled. Most of us patrol pages and never click the little patrolled button because there is no need to do that on a wiki this small so there never is an actual backlog. We create less than 50 articles a day, almost all of which are looked at by people almost immediately after being seen. There is absolutely no need of this at this wiki. Seems to me this is just a quest to get a different hat since another one was denied. -Djsasso (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i'm aware of that fact, and if you would read what I have said you'll see that I have said that that is already the case. And please show me the proof that this is me on "a quest to get a different hat since another one was denied". Because I can guarantee it isn't - I was planning on saying this regardless. Show me proof or it could easily be seen as a personal attack. I don't hat collect. Goblin 11:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
Having an opinion isn't an attack, but you pushing to get IRCOps for yourself and then the Patroller tool right after your Rfa took a downturn...you tell me what it looks like. If it looks like a duck and quacks like duck... Especially seeing how personally you are taking people not agreeing with you. -Djsasso (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break in discussion - Let's get started again

Discussion seems to have stalled on this one. Let's leave behind the petty squabbles above, and re-start the conversation. Feel free to bring the same things up, but I think that would be the best option now that everyone has cooled down a bit. So, do we want the Patroller right enabling or not?

Ok, I might have said it before: I am currently aware of less than 10 non-admin regular editors (including IP editors). We already have "rollback", which permits selected editors to undo the changes of the last person to edit with a click. The very basic question is now: Do you think we get enough vandalism that we need to give our (less than 10) non-admin editors the tool to not only rollback bad changes, but independently confirm that a change is a good one? - I personally think we are currently too small for this (read: too little vandalism, too few non-admin editors). --Eptalon (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's limited to only new pages, and people don't have to use it at all. But the tool isn't limited to vandalism. It's usefulness is that not only does it save time to avoid people looking at articles twice, but it also allows us to ensure that every new page is of good quality, not nonsense, and not a one-line stub (I believe that we should delete all one-liners... despite my earlier comments elsewhere ;)). Hope this makes sense? Goblin 18:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

This discussion has stalled, and it seems that there is no consensus to add the right. Could someone remove the right from Special:Statistics? Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

popups

I have popups enabled here and at enWP, but I have noticed a difference. When I put my cursor over a username here at simple, it does not provide the edit count and user rights, while at enWP it does. Can I change my popups to add that, or does it have to be changed at the project level? Griffinofwales (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't use popups here or at the enWP, but I do know that it would need to be on a project wide level - and so you would need an admin to do it for you. I remember someone (I think it was PeterSymonds) trying to do it a while back, but they were too confuzzled, and as i've never used popups I didn't plan on fiddling with it myself. Hope this clears things up. Regards, Goblin 10:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]
That is a new feature in popups (to my knowledge). Unless someone disagrees (and explains why), I'll transwiki the latest code from en to here for our use. EhJJTALK 14:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you installed the new one yet? or are you waiting for more people to voice their opinion? Griffinofwales (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, I was waiting a day to allow users in all time zones a chance to read/reply. I'll see if I can do that now. EhJJTALK 03:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Please proceed with the transwiki soon. Updating to new versions is not a bad thing, especially when they fix broken stuff. ;) Chenzw  Talk  05:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new feature isn't working. Do I have to deactivate my popups and then activate them again? Griffinofwales (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight candidature

Hello all. That all users are official informed: There is page here, where all interested admins who are at least 18 can nominate themselves. For more information about the rules see the meta page.

All users are invited to ask the candidates, if there are questions.

Best --Barras (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to do the candidate sections as subpages. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created my subpage now. Barras (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and spun out all the subpages; I didn't know where yours was, but feel free to delete the page I made and move yours into its place. I notified the other three candidates of the move, so they can put the subpages on their respective watchlists. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review of CFA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion is over, Djsasso is a crat. No more overtuning, now let's all get back to editing the encyclopedia.. Shappy talk 02:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following the closure of the last RfB we had that was contested and afterwards reversed, the current state of our criteria for adminship comes to mind. The current version makes no mention of any acceptable range for bureaucrat discretion nor the possibility for the challenging of closures. In addition, based on observations, it appears that editors don't look through comments and the nomination in full before voting. Hence, it might be a good idea to implement what someone suggested quite some time back: a compulsory period in RfXs when no voting is allowed.

All comments are welcome. Chenzw  Talk  11:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't change the rules after/during the Rfx has happened because someone didn't like the result. The CFA make no mention that a candidate has to reach 75%. Being 1 vote off the suggested percentages is hardly an unacceptable use of discretion. I think this wiki has finally shown me it has absolutely no intention of trying to be a serious wiki. -Djsasso (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To make this place a serious wiki, we don't need more and more top-heavy bureaucracy, we need great articles, plenty of editors who want to write them, and good standardised processes. A comment like the one you have made would possibly make people question why you wanted to be a 'crat here in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think that setting a precedent of the fact one crat can overturn another crat because they don't like a decision is bad for the wiki? We don't allow wheelwarring for admins, why are we allowing it for crats? And because we have now set a precedent that RFX is purely about the numbers and not about discussion and weighing arguments? which is also bad for the wiki? You all just blew away the standardized practices we had is my point. You can't both ignore some of wikipedias main principles and at the same time try to say you want standardized processes when you ignored the standardized processes we have. -Djsasso (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what I meant about having no intention of being a serious wiki, is that trying to change the rules of the process in the middle of the process to try and get the outcome you would prefer is something children do when they are trying to get their way. The CFA clearly states that RFX is not about numbers and that a crat may use their discretion. If we have no intention of allowing the crat to use their discretion then why do we have crats? And how much smaller of a range of discretion can we get than a single !vote? -Djsasso (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well for sometime I've tried to move us from actual voting to !voting but most of our systems on Simple still use actual votes, PVGA and PGA to name two that I'm particularly interested in. This Wikipedia already ignores some of the main principles of Wikipedia, and I've been victim of it at PVGA. Part of the reason I've voted against more 'crats is that on this Wiki it is all about bean-counting. But I'm not saying we should standardise with en.wiki, but we should standardise in this particular Wiki. You can help make the standards without being a 'crat. And by the way, I didn't "blow anything away", I simply warned Fr33kman that he had set an unhealthy precedent. I also think that Chenzw has set another unhealthy precedent. So all-in-all, it's a bad day for Simple English Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a steward should review and reclose the RFB. All active crat's are now involved. fr33kman talk 13:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I didn't mean you specifically blew anything away. That was bad wording on my part. I meant the knee jerk reaction to request removal. Especially when the steward them self pointed to the fact our criteria was in fact met in fr33kmans close. -Djsasso (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's something that I am confused over - so are you for or against bean-counting? What you said on fr33kman's talk page is clearly different ("but at what point does 68.8% support (11/16) equate to being in a discretionary range where we advise "a consensus of at least 75% supporting votes" to promote") as compared to what you are saying here ("Part of the reason I've voted against more 'crats is that on this Wiki it is all about bean-counting"). Over there you seem to be against fr33kman's decision (of "discounting" votes) while over here you appear to be against bean-counting. Please clarify. Chenzw  Talk  13:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This Wikipedia is heavily biased to voting, not !voting. It shouldn't be. I have argued long against it. But to no avail whatsoever. So, with that in mind, we need to be careful on what we describe as "voting", because this Wikipedia doesn't really understand a "!vote". Sure we have a couple of tacit nods to "consensus", but in general that's poorly understood, poorly and rarely implemented. The precedent I was concerned about was suddenly a 'crat suggesting that "too many 'crats" wasn't specific enough to Djsasso, (and therefore the promotion could effectively be counted as 11 supports and 3 opposes). I didn't like that either. In any case, we'll see what Vector thinks, and then I suggest we all have a cup of tea and get on with writing articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At no point did I discount anyone's comments; I merely did not treat the process as a vote and gave weighting to all arguments. As a crat should do. fr33kman talk 13:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that top heaviness is not needed, but I also don't see it being a particular problem. Most people do edit mainspace, some more than others, but it is important to remember none of us are payed for being here. The RFB and RFA processes need to be altered. Right now it is obviously a simple case of counting the numbers, and a bot could close them in that case. I stated in my own RFB that I would not be treating it as a vote and I got the overwhelming support of the community even after saying so. fr33kman talk 13:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You state there "Bureaucrats can promote users to admins with at least 60% support, but have to say clearly why they did so. Under 60% supports will the candidate not de promoted. ". I don't then understand your objection to my rpomoting Djsasso. fr33kman talk 13:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant it with regards to the current CFA. Chenzw  Talk  13:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm very disappointed by this. The fact that the crats would ask for a reversal before having a thoughtful discussion. Other places call this a "crat chat". I would have liked to see some discussion among the crats... before we issues a request to meta. Additionally, it would have been a great mutual respect to ask and allow Fr33kman the time to reconsider, along with thoughtful discussion. How this was handled was most likely handled in what was intended to be a respectful way, however, appeared very disrespectful to both the crat who made this decision, and the community who gave him consent to make such a decision (his RFB). Pardon my spelling.
  • There is far too much wheel warring, intentional or unintentional. This is what this equates to, a reversal of an action. I'm also a little embarrased by the fact that we went to meta, before the crats had this "crat chat" or any kind of thoughtful discussion with the community. It shows that we don't know how to handle our own. As a project in it's own right, we ought to be able to handle this sort of thing without asking a steward to make a decision for us. This is basically what we did. You crats... should have come to a consensus before asking the steward to make a decision. Stewards don't decide. I'd like to ponder this more, and I may have more later.

That is all I have for now. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, when the "close call" stuff has taken place on en.wiki, typically a 'crat will put the RFx on hold and, as NonvocalScream says, initiate a 'crat chat. A 'crat chat would normally precede major 'crat activities such as (1) promoting someone or (2) calling for a steward to demote someone. I think we've messed up on both counts. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree.
On a different subject, how is the close of the RFB handled? Is he not becoming a bureaucrat? Shappy talk 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Vector has been emailed to review the RFB since he is the only crat left who hasn't openly had an opinion on the issue. (ie voted against me or commented in the rfb that no one should be made crat) -Djsasso (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be 60% for RfAs, 80% for RfBs, OS and CU. Pmlineditor 17:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should lay off Fr33kman a little. He has only just become a bcrat, so he's still learning. He obviously thought he was doing the right thing here.
  • There was absolutely no need to rush to meta. It was close, but definitely not an obvious fail. If the closure was disputed, the course of action to be taken would be to initiate a discussion, or a bureaucrat chat. This quick reversal of actions was needless, and is not what this wiki should be like. We are supposed to trust each other; people make mistakes, but it did not require any urgent reversal in the manner this was done. Majorly talk 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello all, I will also post my comments here; they are not so much about the decision Fr33kman took, and that it was contested; but rather of a more general nature:
    Bureaucrats are needed to run certain processes of the wiki; they take decisions which have an impact on the whole community. For this reason those people who get elected to be bureaucrats should be those the community of users trusts most. But what is the meaning of trust exactly? - Would it not mean that regardless of what a certain rule or guideline says that these users make choices, and take sensible decisions? - Yes, Bureaucrats can be wrong, and often are; As a user I might not like how a bureaucrat has decided, but there are few choices. The community, the tyranny of the majority (Plato, Alexis de Tocqueville; John Stuart Mill; I think it was de Tocqueville who coined the term), has decided that these people are the best we have. So either I trust them to fill the role the were elected into, or if I can no longer trust them I must stand up to it, and get my distrust sorted out, in some way. What I do expect as a user, in any case is that the bureaucrats are able to solve the problems they might have on their own.
    Fr33kman's decision was contested, and a steward was involved in undoing the promotion. This cost us our freedom of choice - If DJSasso is indeed re-promoted (by a steward), then those admins that pressed for a demotion will look bad, and DJSasso will also have the burden that he is not fully trusted by the all the other admins / crats, which may make working here as a bureaucrat hard for him. If his non-promotion is confirmed than at least one crat will look bad. My question is now - what is the best choice we can make to limit the damage done one one side, and to not lose our credibility as a community on the other?--Eptalon (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eptalon, you thoughts intrigue me. I have pondered them. I do not know if the damage we have done is repairable. I posit that we must commit, and take commitments that should this ever revisit us, we will act in a different manner. I shall wait for others whom were directly involved to comment on this... I think those thoughts would be most revealing, and hopefully, reassuring. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment. Does anyone else find it ironic that some of the votes were that we had enough 'crats an didn't need more, and now we have run out of uninvolved crats? -Djsasso (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not particularly. We have an active base of around 25 to 30 editors, so that makes about 1/5 of them 'crats. It just so happens that when RFx's are run here, on some occasions 'crats vote (like I did) because they feel strongly enough. It's not that surprising, therefore that we're all outa 'crats here. While Eptalon suggested there were admins "press(ing) for a demotion", I didn't see it that way particularly. One or two people were openly vocal in questioning the decision (myself included), the decision was made (admittedly without discussion) to request a de-crat via Meta, and now we're back where we were before Djsasso went into his RFB but with a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Once again, let me reiterate, a number of mistakes were made, discussion should have happened (1) before promotion and (2) before demotion. It didn't, in either case, and that's unfortunate, but don't forget, nothing's broken, we can fix these things. One thing Eptalon said I'll repeat - let's see what we can do to "not lose our credibility as a community". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I left my computer, I knew that if the RfB closed at that moment, it would close as no-consensus, because we had not met the 75% mark. Fr33kman is new, and so this will be a learning experience for him. I do think that the 'crats should have had a crat chat before going to Meta, and this RfB should set precedent for future RfBs. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Disclosure notice: I voted for Djsasso[reply]
    The issue being discussed of course is that the requirements specifically say 75% is not required. The requirements are written in such a way as to make it clear that 75% does not need to be met, the issue at hand is should fr33kman make that call on his own or should he have discussed it with the others, noting that all but 2 other crats had COIs due to voting or commenting and would under proper circumstances have been recused from such a crat chat anyways one would think. As for the running to meta right away, that definitely should have been discussed and I think Chenzw has said as much to me though I may be misinterpreting what he has said. -Djsasso (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With the size of this project, I think that Fr33kman should have sought a second opinion when closing an RfB with less than the 75%. I believe that RfBs should not pass with less than 75% (especially with the size of this project). Griffinofwales (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Will answer in 20 minutes[reply]
    Fr33kman was the only uninvolved active bureaucrat. And again, the percentage is not set in stone. The problem with this wiki is we refuse to go by anything but the numbers. Shappy talk 20:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair Chenzw and Vector at the time were also uninvolved. But Chenzw having done the request to meta he is involved as well now. -Djsasso (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the point of the thread? I think it's pretty clear that Djsasso isn't going to be promoted, and yesterday (last time I checked the percentage), I wasn't expecting him to be promoted. It's unfortunate, but that's life. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some confusion about bureaucrats' abilities. Bureaucrats are part of the community, not above it, so have every right to vote as everyone else. This does not, however, mean they should be excluded from performing a close where they voted. Just because you voted a particular way, it doesn't mean you are physically unable to close it fairly. We promote bcrats because they can judge consensus in RFAs. If they are unable to do that, just because they happened to vote, they should not be bureaucrats. A bureaucrat closes an RFA based on what the community wants - a bureaucrat is part of the community too. I would trust any of our bureaucrats, whether they closed it or not, to comment in a bureaucrat discussion on this. We are limiting ourselves way too much - I suppose if a bureaucrat even makes a formatting fix on an RFA, that makes them involved too now? It really is getting to silly levels - we need to trust our bureaucrats more. Majorly talk 22:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I propose that Djsasso is given back the crat flag. Fr33kman's close was definitely justified, with it being one vote away from the "recommended" percentage. Fr33kman could've also weighed the arguments in the support and oppose sections. The manner in which the crat flag was removed was entirely inappropriate, and it shouldn't have happened in the first place. I know there will be those meticulous bean counters waving their hands and saying, "the only thing that matters is the percentage", but the reason we give bureaucrats the tools is because we trust them to make tough calls like these and not automatically reverse them. For someone who achieved such a large amount of support in his RFB, I'm shocked at how little weight Fr33kman's decision was given. Shappy talk 02:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Shappy. As much as I disagree with the promotion, the closure was done completely fairly and well within bureaucrat discretion. Majorly talk 02:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed 100% with re-instating the flag, at least until we have a chance to discuss the situation more thoughtfully and rationally. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per JC's comments. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As with my above comments, the crat had our consent to make such a decision. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-Up

Our only uninvolved bureaucrat, Vector (talk • changes • email • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights • renames), has edited 7 time this month, and not in nearly 2 weeks. Since his judgement with RFBs isn't exactly flawless, and he is quite inactive, I'm wondering if it would be OK to go to Meta for the promotion. I'd rather we end this once and for all instead of waiting for Vector. Thoughts? Shappy talk 15:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, meta stewards won't make such decissions, because we have local crats. If wished, I mail Vector, to have a look at this. To go to meta would be not helpful. Barras || talk 15:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just talked to a steward, and he said if all active local crats had participated in the discussion, a steward would consider it. Besides, Vector is awfully inactive, and there have been issues with his judgement before. Shappy talk 15:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to the 'crats if they want to let a steward do it or if a crat should just do it as is suggested by your suggestion above. I won't get involved any further than the statements I made above. I am in no rush and will be away for a couple days since its a long weekend in Canada. So if I don't respond to a question its because I haven't been around a computer. -Djsasso (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a steward should make the decission, it should be a steward, who isn't active on enwiki or admin there, because it could be an COI and we had now enough drama. Please ask an steward, who isn't active on enwiki. Otherwise, it could be an unfair decission. Barras || talk 16:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to tell you this on IRC; as far as I know, Djsasso has not encountered any stewards. Until we have evidence that a certain steward has a COI with Djsasso, any steward (save for DerHexer) should be free to close it. Shappy talk 16:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that stewards are pretty trusted to be neutral and unbiased when making decisions. I would trust any steward with this. hmwithτ 16:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why Vector is the only uninvolved Crat... Kennedy (talk • changes). 17:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy! :D Shappy talk 17:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because everyone else has voted against me (such as yourself in the previous rfb) as becoming one or made a statement against having any more crats period. Chenzw, Vector and F33kman were the only 3 who did neither, freek closed obviously so was involved...chenzw was the one who went and requested it be reversed so was involved. Leaving only Vector. -Djsasso (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comment above. Bureaucrats do not suddenly lose the ability to close a discussion fairly just because they voted on it, or happened to make some slight edit in your favour or otherwise. We should have more faith in our bureaucrats. Any one of them are able to make a decision, Vector is not the only one available. Majorly talk 19:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No but I do think one who clearly opposed should not be making a decision in a case where there is a question on if 1 single vote matters. I believe you objected highly when Vector voted in and closed a Rfb in the past as did many others. I don't see how this would be different. A slight edit is a different matter, but comments directly on the Rfb can sway !votes/opinons (especially when they are a highly respected editor) and a crat shouldn't touch an Rfx they have had an influence in. Personally I think it should have never been undone to begin with since a crat in good standing made the call, but it is what it is. -Djsasso (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone who took a very clear stand (TRM as an example) should not be doing anything here. But others, perhaps who just voted without a comment, could very well do the close. I believe the incident with Vector is when he closed the RFB unusually early when it was a fairly close call, voted on it, and at the time, there were plenty of impartial bureaucrats around so it was not as if it was a rush. Majorly talk 19:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, I don't remember the details other than he voted in and closed it. But you are right I am sure most of the crats can close it fine. I just didn't want to see this ridiculous situation get worse. -Djsasso (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crat chat

I still don't see the crats discussing anything on this as a chat chat on the talk page of the RFB. I ask...

  1. Please start this discussion crats or
  2. Chenz, please restore the closing crat's close or
  3. Some other thoughtful solution.

NonvocalScream (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I modified my above comment to include the word or... It was not clear what I meant. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, you want a decision from an uninvolved crat. Allow me. I am an uninvolved crat as I was not involved at all. Don't like my decision, go RfDe me. My decision as a crat: 68.8% support (11/16) is not consensus to promote when the tally should be 75%. Djsasso will not become crat at this time because of this. Discussion closed, please go write an encyclopedia. Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'll post something here; I currently see only two options to solve this problem:
  1. We ask any uninvolved steward to take the decision about promoting/not promotion. With this we run the risk of labelling the person who took that decision originally as incompetent to do so; This is completely contrary to what the community said when they bestowed the tools.
  2. Based on the fact that the closing crat took a decision (which some do not like), and that he did not overstep any powers when he did so, we say that the overturning of the decision was unjustified; any crat can re-promote the candidate to the intended status, to restore the original decision.
Being crat is about taking decisions. I would generally opt for the second option; as the first is more detrimental (worse) for our community. If there are no qualified comments to the contrary, I will therefore promote the candidate, on Monday evening. Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a discretionary call that crats are supposedly permitted to make and weighed consensus in a fashion that I said I would during my RFB. The community still elected me. I still feel I made the correct call. fr33kman talk 20:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong Fr33k, I know why you made the decision, it was relatively close, and had this not all been blown up, I would have agreed with you. Unfortunately when its overturned, and an uninvolved crat is requested, I go by the rules to make it fair. I understand and respect your initial decision. Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've said my peace and I know I made the right call. I feel the unfair thing was to overturn a good faith decision in the first place. It has set two bad precedents, firstly that crats are permitted to overrule each other and secondly, that all RFAs/RFBs etc., must be closed strictly based on counting votes and no other way. fr33kman talk 20:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kennedy... your edits disappoint me. They were very aggressive and uncivil. RFD you? "Fine..." "Discussion closed"? I don't understand why you would edit in such a manner. Your unilateral action was by no means thoughtful discussion between crats. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologise for that, wasn't my intention, although it does come across that way. A decision was needed, much talking without any doing, so I made a decision based on the rules trying to put an end to this. Kennedy (talk • changes). 09:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What rules? They're guidelines not policy and the specifically permit a crat to make a judgment call when it is close. I did that, it was overruled. A very harmful precedent has been set. The guidelines should now be discussed and changed into strict policies that formally remove crat discretion and set up promotion elections as votes not !votes. fr33kman talk 14:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only recognise Fr33kman's decision as valid, unless discussion comes to conclusion otherwise... at this time, it has not. So everyone who supported that rfb, are now disenfranchised. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh give me a break. How are they disenfranchised? They voted, and their votes were counted, but it wasn't clear for him to be promoted. You are not disenfranchised if the vote doesn't go your way. Kennedy (talk • changes). 15:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You want a break? {{wikibreak}}. But I'm sure this discussion could do without that banter, we can edit like adults, or like mature people.
  • You are disenfranchised if the election closed, however, not closed correctly. Fr33kman made a correct decision (i am biased), and his decision was overturned. The community gave him consent to make that decision, but one or two, took that from him, and thus, took that from us. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, this is simple. result was 11/16, 68.8%. To reach the required 75 % you need 4 more votes. 1 more vote is 70% 2 more is 72%. 3 more is 73.6%. You need 15/20 support votes to reach 75%. 4 votes isn't exactly close and the decision to overturn fr33kman was correct. The person who said there was one vote in it was wrong (they thought of it as 12/16 instead of 12/17). Hope this settles things. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 07:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, because as discussed its not all about pure numbers. Its about weight of arguments. A crat can weigh different arguments as having a higher/lower value than others. Just as admins can do in closing an Afds. Clearly he was saying he felt "not enough crats" is not as strong an argument as those put forth by some supporters etc. (amongst other things mentioned in his close). We have promoted admins that were off by the same amount percentage wise before, this is not the first time its happened. Its only become a big deal because of the horrible way one crat was overturned by another without discussion. (who has since admitted he should not have undone it.) -Djsasso (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision on Monday: reinstate DJSasso

(<-) After a long period of deliberation, I have restored Fr33kman's decision, and promoted DJSasso to the level of bureaucrat. Of the two options I outlined above, this is the less painful one. I hope to end discussions about this matter in that way, and I can only wish DJSassso all the best of his future role. --Eptalon (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding? Okay let me get this straight. Fr33k makes a decision to promote when there is no clear consensus, and its overturned, so people ask for an uninvolved crat to look at it, I do. Oh the humanity! I called the "guidelines" rules, which they're not, apparently. And I went against another crats decision. Oh but because we like DJSasso, its okay to promote him again, without consensus, and only one crat making a decision, and this time its fine that another crat made a different decision. Seriously, wtf is happening here? Why is DJSasso being promoted when he was no-where near the consensus required by the rules/guidelines? Why are these double standards being tolerated? Why is my decision not fair, but its fine to go against it again? Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We gave Fr33kman our trust knowing very well he would have to make close calls we may disagree with. It was revoked without any discussion by another crat, which should not have happened. Shappy talk 20:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My decision has been revoked, with very little discussion with another crat. Kennedy (talk • changes). 20:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enough of this crap, seriously. Djsasso is not the President of the United States; he now has access to three extra buttons. Sorry for the hostility of this note, but this situation is frankly ridiculous. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Kennedy: Being crat is about making decisions. There are guidelines, such as the criteria for adminship that can help a crat reach his decision. Fr33kman is a relatively new crat, but he still made a decision. I assume here he took the decision that he judged to be best for this wikipedia, for this community. We had the two options I outlined above. One of them would be to have an uninvolved steward take the decision for us. With this, we do not only show that we are incapable of closing an RfA in a neutral and fair manner, but we also take any credibility from the crat who made the original decision. The other option we have is to declare the overruling and undoing of the original decision as inadequate and therefore invalid. If you compare my original comment in DJsasso's RFB to what I did today, you will see that there is no conflict of interest there. I have also outlined in my posts before that simply disagreeing with the decision taken is not grounds to invalidate or overturn it - The bureaucrats are elected by popular vote, and are legitimized by that vote. Having the same status as the bureaucrat who took the decision does not give you the right to overturn this decision. After a long deliberation, I have reached the decision to say that the overturning of the decision is invalid. The other option to this is not viable, as it would de-stabilize our community even more. It would also mean that Fr33kman has no future as a bureaucrat, because people do not trust his decisions. This matter is closed, we are flogging a dead horse. Let's get on with life. Rather than flogging the horse any more, do something that helps this wikipedia. Create articles or make them better.--Eptalon (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you have said exactly what I have said, except the fact that you have came to a different conclusion. My point is, being a crat is about making decisions; I made a decision so why wasn't my decision appropriate? Why does my close not have the same bearing as yours? Why is mine invalid, and yours is to be the correct result in which is not to be questioned? You have basically said what I have said in "go write an encyclopaedia", but I get berated of being aggressive and uncivil. I thought about my decision too; I made sure I was totally impartial, and gave reasons for my decision, which is why I am a crat. Why the hell was any decision by a crat needed in the first place, as apparently there is only one acceptable result? Kennedy (talk • changes). 21:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't all of you just do what we seem to say all the time: 'Go and build a wiki'. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kennedy: Why don't you expand Scottish Cup. Eptalon, let's expand Millau Viaduct as we said earlier. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Kennedy, Fr33kman made a decision; all I did was restore his decision, because disagreeing with it is no valid reason to overturn it. You saw the options we have, I have pointed them out above (shortly after your posting last Friday). It took a crat to decide, because that's what crats get elected for. The choices were limited, and I picked the lesser of the two evils. I hope you understand. --Eptalon (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Let me make this as clear as I can: I do not think either you, or Fr33k made a wrong decision, only the fact that my decision was overturned disappoints me. Kennedy (talk • changes). 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that Fr33kman feels the same way. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The decision to overturn the decision to overturn the decision to overturn the decision to overturn Djsasso's promotion was overturned? Right... –Juliancolton | Talk 02:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Additions of user rights (-sysop)

I propose to enable the ability for our local crats to be able to remove the sysop flag. They close discussions for deRFA, so we should enable them to act on the closure as well. Should this proposal pass, I will make the bug request linking to this discussion. Thoughts? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support this! The MediaWiki software allows for this, and WMF policy also allows for it. It is up to the local project to decide, but I think it lessens our exposure to meta: and out reliance on the Stewards. As people may know, we don't have the best reputation within WMF and this would allow us to become more professional. The ability would only be used with community consensus of course. fr33kman talk 01:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I would support this would be for sysop inactivity. Normally we don't have a reason to have crats desysop admins, except for the part I just mentioned. I think the stewards do a good job at desysopping stewards sysops. My only concern would be abusing the crats powers (although that does sounds really far-fetched). —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 02:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The crat abuses; you de-crat the crat! Plain and simple. NVS knows that I was going to suggest this myself soon; but NVS beat me to it. If we are ever going to convince WMF that we are a serious project, then we need to bring this sort of stuff locally. fr33kman talk 02:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree :) It does sound a bit far, I don't think it would occur. However, if it did, the stewards can directly desysop the abuser in an emergency and reinstate the real sysops. I don't think this will ever happen. Also, I don't see where a crat would remove rights except for inactivity... unless there were a very specific discussion and consensus to do so otherwise. So, I can count you onboard? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I just noticed that I misspelled one of my words. I literally burst out laffing (dammit laughing) when I found out. lmao! —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 02:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Support. Excellent idea, NVS. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do support the idea. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 02:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Communities should keep matters local whenever possible. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this addition to the responsibilities of bureaucrats, because as Juliancolton said, it is best to keep things as locally as possible so that we do not have to depend upon the stewards all the time. Cheers, Razorflame 05:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I've to disagree. Removal of accesses should be done on meta. If we get troubles and a crat runs amuk (even if I guees no-one will do this), s/he could remove the accesses of the other admins. Its not a big deal to request the removal on meta. No other wiki has this imo enabled. The removal of such "important" flags is the work of the stewards, not of the crats. And there aren't so many de-sysops (3 each year?). So far no need. Barras || talk 09:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure. I think it is always best to keep things local, I fear it might be giving bureaucrats excess power which might be harmful if they take rash decisions. Pmlineditor  Talk 09:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, we should keep the most things local, but I don't see any need for this. For two or three de-sysop request, we don't need this right. I have to problem to spend this one edit on meta, to request the removal, if no one else want to edit there. It's not a big deal to ask for an easy removal of an flag. Therefore, we have the stewards. Crat should only be allowed to add the sysop, but the removal (like on all other wikis) should be done by an steward on meta. Barras || talk 09:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Agree with the proposal. I agree with Chenzw actually on this one. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 10:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel right about this. On this wiki, we have had not one, not two, but three major cases of abuse, to the best of my knowledge. There could even be more. In the case of real abuse by a bureaucrat, the most logical thing for him to do is to de-crat all other bureaucrats first, causing them unable to resolve the situation. Thus, allowing bureaucrats to de-crat (or even desysop, for that matter) others is simply too dangerous. Chenzw  Talk  10:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this really flows logically. Stewards can be alerted to the situation by any editor. They would then de-crat, de-sysop and block the offending party. After which all their abusive actions could also be undone and those that were de-sysoped can be resysoped. The point here is to avoid the need for meta intervention on a regular basis, not in emergencies. We have enough well known editors here and many of them are always on #wikimedia-stewards on IRC. They would alert the stewards within seconds or minutes. Frankly, however, I don't think this would ever occur. fr33kman talk 18:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chenzw makes a really nice point. However the proposed idea is only to allow crats desysop admins, not de-crat other crats. De-cratting rights should only be allowed to stewards or Jimbo. Also in case a crat goes rogue, de-sysopping should only be permitted to admins w/o crat status. Other crats should be immune to the desysopping action. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 19:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Desysop is steward-restricted for a reason. —MC8 (b · t) 10:08, Thursday August 13 2009 (UTC)
  • Excellent idea. It works well on Meta, and will here too. There is no danger whatsoever, and this paranoia is ridiculous. Stewards are still able to intervene if there is an unlikely emergency. All I see from those opposing this is "It's the stewards' job" without explaining why. The fact stewards desysop is a historical accident. Other Mediawiki projects allow bureaucrats to desysop as default. Why is it they are not allowed to reverse their own actions? We should not keep having to run to the stewards when we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves. Majorly talk 12:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Majorly said. We are actually a rarity in that we don't allow them to do it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a fan of this proposal on enwiki, and I'm a fan of it here. The separation is silly, and the concern about a rogue 'crat is mild paranoia in my opinion (though much more of a silly prospect on enwiki than here). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a rogue crat was to cause major disruptions and abuse his powers, the penalities for desysopping admins should be severe (i.e., removal of all admin functions for the abuser, blocking or possibly banning the abuser, and reinstate the admin victims). Also we should form policies for crats on when and only to desysop users. Desysopping should be limited to inactive admins and through clear community consensus. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 19:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<poll was here> To whomever created this section. Don't vote on everything. Consensus doesn't just come from polls. -DJSasso (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but this isn't a vote, it's a poll. We need to create the suggested policy first, this is the idea. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First I quote "This is a straight vote to be used in determining consensus" (bolding mine) and secondly read m:Voting_is_evil#Polling_discourages_consensus -DJSasso (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just read it. We have the section above. This is for simplifying things. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We shuold not create problems where there aren't any... --Eptalon (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was that to me or Djsasso? I fixed my problem (or I think I did, did I miss something?). Griffinofwales (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support allowing 'crats to do so. Let's keep things local. hmwithτ 16:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Julian and hmwith. →javért stargaze 16:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

necromanced from archives, this needs closing first. —MC8 (b · t) 19:53, Wednesday August 26 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_69&oldid=8894411"