Wikivoyage talk:Bureaucrats

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Why was this moved out of the Wikivoyage shared namespace? – (WT-shared) cacahuate talk 20:58, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

The Wikivoyage Shared namespace is deprecated: [1] (WT-shared) Jpatokal 13:06, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Local removal of adminship[edit]

Swept in from the pub

This discussion should be moved to Wikivoyage talk:Bureaucrats once that page has been imported from backups

We began to have a discussion here Wikivoyage talk:Script policy#Ad hoc admin rights regarding local bureaucrats ability to remove admin and bureaucrat rights. This was something we always had prior to the move to the WMF. We haven't had much need for the ability, really, but it may be helpful in the future with cases like this one, where a bot needs temporary admin rights. I'm actually not sure what the logic behind denying this ability to bureaucrats is.

Would restoring removal of adminship rights seem reasonable locally? --Peter Talk 18:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

  • This is more of a "opt-in" thing; by default WMF wikis require stewards to remove admin/crat rights, unless the wiki decides that they would like the ability. (For comparison the English Wikipedia only had this turned on in 2011). As far as removing crat rights by bureaucrats, that also is possible, but you run the risk of significant damage if a bureaucrat's account gets hacked. --Rschen7754 20:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I support granting 'crats the right to remove admin bits. I'm fine with needing a steward to remove a 'crat bit, though; seems a good safeguard. LtPowers (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with LtPowers. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support local removal of admin bit only, per LtPowers. This, that and the other (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support sumone10154(talk) 20:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support --Rogerhc (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested at bugzilla:43851. sumone10154(talk) 04:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

RenameUser[edit]

Do we have a policy on what (when, etc.) username changes are allowed? LtPowers (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, can I change my name to User:I'll tell you wycsi? Texugo (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
(Tangential comment) Note that this will not change your name across all WMF sites, and if you want to keep your SUL account unified you will need to request a rename at all wikis you have an edit on. --Rschen7754 03:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:How to create a user account#Changing your username is the closest we have. Wikivoyage talk:How to create a user account#Renames touched on this, and my suggested practice would be to not rename (and thereby sever) SUL accounts, and request that users look to rename their global account name. --Peter Talk 04:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it is not possible to globally rename users (yet); you have to request a rename from bureaucrats on every site you have an account with edits on. If there are no local bureaucrats on a wiki, you can ask a steward for assistance, but they refuse to do renames on a wiki with bureaucrats. --Rschen7754 04:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I guess I have a short memory. Thanks for the reminders, folks. LtPowers (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Process of revoking admin rights[edit]

The (obvious?) and complementary section on revoking admin rights (as opposed to nominating someone to be granted them) in the "notice" section at Wikivoyage:Administrator nominations was recently removed.

If that is not the obvious place for a nomination and subsequent discussion of revoking admin rights, where then should it be?

Should the procedure be kept secret lest it be abused? -- Alice 01:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a specific admin's status, you should discuss with that admin and others first before initiating any kind of formal unelection procedure. LtPowers (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
At the moment we're talking about general policy rather than any individual admin qualifying for their status to be revoked, so would you like to add the necessary replacement text to the relevant page - and tell us
a) where is the right place for a nomination and subsequent discussion of revoking admin rights and
b) whether the procedure be kept secret lest it be abused?
I was speaking generally; it may have been clearer if I had said "If, in the future, someone has a problem with a specific admin's status...". If a nomination is deemed necessary, Wikivoyage:Administrator nominations would be the place for it, but it's not necessary to specify that because the location of the discussion can be explained once the process gets to that point. LtPowers (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
So you do think it's best kept a secret amongst ourselves until and unless the need arises? -- Alice 01:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not a secret, but there's no point in making an open invitation, either. Why is this so important to you? LtPowers (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Because of the way Wikitravel went bad. I see the same incipient megalomaniac/Stalinist tendencies here in some quarters. -- Alice 07:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll just let that comment speak for itself. LtPowers (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

New bureaucrat[edit]

Peter is retired and I think we should look for a new crat to fill his space. Please suggest who should be nominated for the cratship? If I would have to nominate someone, that's Ikan Kekek. --Saqib (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing against him, but do we need more crats, especially since renaming will be handled by stewards sometime within the next year? --Rschen7754 18:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I could take it or leave it, but Ikan would be a good choice if we do want another crat. Texugo (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
German version have four crats, Spanish have six, French have five, Italian have six, while Dutch have five, why can't we have one more? --Saqib (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
We actually have 7. Special:ListUsers/bureaucrat. --Rschen7754 18:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Ops. I thought we've only 2 left. --Saqib (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like we don't need another bureaucrat, then, but thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm perfectly content to remain a regular admin. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
We only have two regular users here who are bureaucrats. I'm not clear there is a role for them apart from sysopping. --Inas (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Jani and Evan have 'crat status for historical reasons. Roland, DerFussi, and Hans have it for technical reasons (which may be out of date, come to think of it). I originally applied for 'crat status because Ryan was involved in legal proceedings and Peter was going to be on vacation. Absent those factors, I wouldn't have applied. Considering how little there is for us to do at the moment (applications for account merges have dried up to nothing), I don't think there's much of a need for more. LtPowers (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Revisited[edit]

While the workload on bureaucrats is generally very low, I'm going to be traveling extensively later this year, and that will leave only LtPowers as an active bureaucrat. I think it's important to have more than one person available to handle renames, WT contribution merges, and promote people to admin, so what thoughts do people have about adding a third active bureaucrat? It was suggested above that Ikan Kekek might be a good option (if he's willing to add a few more buttons), or alternately Texugo has been around and active for many years and thus also seems like a good candidate. Thoughts? If there is consensus to add a third, and if someone is willing, then I can start a nomination. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence. I'd prefer to decline, though. Texugo is a great candidate and I think he would have everyone's confidence; he certainly has mine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd be willing to do it. And thanks for the vote of confidence. Texugo (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick responses - I've started a nomination at Wikivoyage:Administrator nominations#User:Texugo (for bureaucrat). -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Check Users group[edit]

I would like to suggest we have a couple of administrators with Check Users access. I suspect we have more sock-puppets than we think. In particular I would like to block more Telstra vandal users then we currently have but currently there is the risk of incorrectly hitting and innocent new user. Would like to volunteer myself and @Ikan Kekek: who is always active against vandals and disruptors. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Someone would have to explain to me how to do this. But you know, I think the obvious step is to simply filter out all Telstra users with unregistered email addresses, and I don't understand why no-one with technical knowledge has done this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I asked about that but could not find anyone who thought it was possible. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Last time we went down this path, we came to the conclusion that for the limited time it was required, that Stewards could do what was required here. I'm not convinced the situation has changed, or that we have a framework ready. --Inas (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
With all respect to the current set of stewards, for whatever reason, they can be a fickle lot, the problems need to be voiced with them - as at times they can be unresponsive and choosy. Whereas the checkuser tool with a regular set of admins would, in my opinion be more immediate and helpful to tackle the issue. I would support the tools being given to experienced admins as a potential start. Even in a trial sense, to ascertain the issues from the perspective of being able to see what is happening. JarrahTree (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Is creation of CheckUser group a decision of this sites Bureaucrats or of the Stewards? Any process that needs to be initiated? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
The information is here: meta:CheckUser policy#Appointing local Checkusers. It looks to me like we would need to nominate two users, have a discussion, and then contact the stewards. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Not sure we can get support from 25 contributors but hopefully consensus will be enough. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Anyone else want to be considered for CheckUser? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we have more info about practice to date, please. At present this function is done for us by Wikimedia stewards, right? How often has WV requested checks by the stewards? For example, how many requests per year over the last 5 years? Nurg (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Not aware of any requests, but maybe other do. Not really what I was looking for. Want to block sockpuppet account when created, not days later when we know what damage has been done. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Searching the archive of the requests at Meta, it appears there have been two requests in the 5 and a half years of the English WV. Does that sound about right?
The question re speed of checking is: will it be done faster by one of the 2 or 3 local checkusers, or will it be done faster by one of the 34 stewards that are available? Nurg (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Just tested, response is reasonably quick, but not sure how long they would tolerate multiple requests. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I support the idea, but do not (yet) want to put myself forward. I'm still getting a hang of the admin tools. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

When we're making too many requests from the Stewards for them to satisfy, then we should appoint our own. There is no evidence of any delay being caused by this process. No evidence of dramatic damage being caused by Sockpuppets that is out of control. Until then, there is no need. This is a solution looking for a problem. Our processes for when Checkuser would be used are non-existant, and I'm concerned that without this framework, we shouldn't be going here. Also, the argument of 'quicker response' holds no water. The multiple stewards are nearly always available. Once we appoint checkusers of our own, they will no longer assist - as per their rules. I definitely don't support this proposal at this point. There is no need. --Inas (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
So why does no one else make requests to the steward? It can take a few hours, depending on the timezone you are on but there is a response. To put things into perspective nearly half of new users and a good number of new pages are Telstra entries. More than are currently being marked as such. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I think its unrealistic to think that a couple of local checkusers on the local site would result in an improved response time. You'd have to give every active admin checkuser, and I'm certain that's not the intended use of the priv. --Inas (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Inas: Other than "there's no need", which I and others don't agree with, what is your argument against appointing a couple of willing admins as checkusers? What harm could it do? It could clearly do some good for the site, and might be an effective tool against Telstra and the latest "fuerdai" moron. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
My arguments are. 1. Once we appoint local, then the stewards would no longer be involved. And this would make us less able to cope with a situation where we actually needed a checkuser, and the relevant admins were travelling, etc. 2. We have no policy around the use of this facility that has been agreed by the community, and acceptable for privacy considerations. 3. We have made no attempt to make use of the existing facility we have for checkuser. Not once. 4. The people arguing in favour are the people who want the authority to do this. This is unhealthy. People arguing in favour should not be putting themselves forward.
So, we end up with a worse response, subject to arbitrary use, without a policy foundation. We shouldn't move forward with this discussion in this quiet admin corner of wikivoyage. We're talking about giving the authority to admins to check the origin IP of accounts on this site without any control on how or when this will be done. This will affect every single user, and the people proposing it should let everyone on the site know that their origin IP (company they are working for, etc) will be used by anonymous admins here without any controls. --Inas (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Old bureaucrats[edit]

Shouldn't there be some kind of procedure, akin to how admin rights are revoked for an inactive account, to strip people who haven't worked here for years of their bureaucrat rights? There is currently one such bureaucrat, User:Hansm, who hasn't made any contributions since 2013. Doesn't letting them keep "tools which could be dangerous in the wrong hands" pose a security risk? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I think we would need to ask a steward to revoke an inactive bureaucrat's status. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)