Talk:Bureaucrat

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] List

So there's no requirement for e.g. how long one must have been a sysop? Will bureaucrats show up differently in Special:listusers? Pakaran 17:14, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Apparently they do show up differently, but only here on Meta - which is a Good Thing IMHO. Pakaran 17:18, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can another rule be added that if you make someone a sysop, you list them on the appropriate "list of administrators" page, and remove the request from Interwiki requests for adminship?. People might waste their time checking up on applications otherwise, only to find they've already been done. Angela 22:20, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think that once we handle the current backlog (which I imagine will happen half an hour after Tim wakes up) requests won't be so frequent that people do the equivalent of edit conflicting with each other. However, I do think that making sure to list people is a good idea. And it should probably be a formal rule, looking at how many people forget to list pages they protect now, which involves a lot less work.
If you don't belong to a (small) wiki where you promote someone, I'd say it's only reasonable to create an account there in order to list the user, or just edit the list as an anon. Pakaran 22:27, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Small WP

I have noted that I will intend to follow 'spirit rather than letter' for the smallest of Wikipedias. What I mean, is that on some Wikipedias the usage is so small that none or almost none of the users can be said to be 'active'. In such a case I'd rather go with the spirit of only doing promotions that would not be objected to by people on the Wikipedia in question, rather than the letter of only promoting active users. This is only about the smallest Wikipedias - the larger ones usually have a method in the place for working with community consensus, and for intermediate small ones, an 'only active users' rule does seem to be appropriate. Of course it also depends on what one calls active... Andre Engels 03:03, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Honestly, there's little real policy at this point - pretty much what we have is Brion's rules of thumb. I think generally the person who requests to start a nanoWikipedia is given sysop status, but I wouldn't swear by that. Pakaran 03:04, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] suggestion: change name from Bureaucrat to....

The word Bureaucrat tends to be used pejoratively to refer to slow moving public employees who frustrate you through their red tape and snail like movement. I suggest changing the term to one of the following: prime sysop, divine sysop, sysop sire, generator, begetter, ambassador or captain....something fun and imaginative....not something so governmental and legal sounding. -Kingturtle

We chose "bureaucrat" on a whim precisely because you can't take it seriously when it has such a lame name. Maybe we were wrong. :) --Brion VIBBER 05:01, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Though bureaucrat is quite unattractive name, I am inclined to side with Brion on this. What bureaucrats are supposed to do is more of "maintenance of user status data," than making substantial decisions based on their own judgments. But said that, I hope there is some better term. Tomos 23:59, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree the name needs to be changed. Bureaucrat is often used to suggest a negative impact on institutional processes, and I believe some people will see it that way. Or else people who want to cause problems will take rhetorical advantage of it. Not everyone will know enough not to take it seriously. It's a public relations problem we don't need to give ourselves. In the spirit of not complaining about a problem without offering a solution, my suggested name is "sysorg", as in system organizer. Michael Snow 02:57, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with minor Wikipedias?

Although I am now a "Bureaucrat", I notice that cy.wikipedia doesn't seem to recognise the fact! Is this a bug somewhere? -- Arwel 15:22, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, you're not one anymore. The idea was cancelled yesterday. Angela 20:38, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Huh? It certainly wasn't, we just took out the addition of the cross-wiki sysopping, which wasn't well thought out and ruined the whole thing by making people paranoid and putting insane rules on it that defeated the purpose. --Brion VIBBER 21:42, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think this has been suggested before, but I would like to suggest an alternate term for someone who can create and demote sysops on their local wiki -- the "sysop". -- Tim Starling 03:37, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that all the sysops should be able to use that function? - I think it is not a bad idea indeed. Simpler structure, fewer titles, and more wiki than creating some bottleneck. We do not need to discuss how to select bureaucrats, etc., either. Tomos 20:44, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Page "Blanked"

OK, so Bureaucrat isn't actually blank, but it's been gutted. Any REAL reason? --Dante Alighieri 19:15, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucrats no longer exist. In future, they might re-exist, but currently it is likely that when they do, you would only be able to make sysops on your own Wikipedia, not any Wikipedia. Angela 20:38, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Still there, and you can only make sysops on your own wiki, not on any wiki. --Brion VIBBER 21:42, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Beg to differ -- I'm a sysop on cy and en, and when I go into specialpages and click "Turn a user into a sysop" I get "The action you have requested can only be performed by sysops with "bureaucrat" status." -- Arwel 22:51, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
That's because your account on cy wasn't marked as 'bureaucrat'. Is is now; please try again. --Brion VIBBER
Ah yes, it's working now. Thanks. -- Arwel 14:28, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Resignation

I wonder if a bureaucrat can remove someone's sysop status. Or we should contact some developers in that case? Tomos 23:59, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I rephrase, it is not resignation, it is forced resignation I wish :-) May a bureaucrat unsysop people ? If so, I apply :-) Anthere

Some people resign, I suppose. We indeed just had the first such (peaceful) announcement at Japanese Wikipedia. It was not because frustration, disappointment, or ungrounded criticism, it seems.

Anyway, I guess bureaucrat can "desysop" somebody based on what's said since I asked that question. Good to know. Tomos 22:30, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A bureaucrat cannot remove another user's sysop or bureaucrat status on Wikimedia wikis at this time. Rob Church (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Czech bureaucrat or sysop

Angela told me, the Czech sysop, or even bureaucrat (?), is cs:Wikipediista:Miroslav MALOVEC. But since 18 December 2003 he has been no longer active. Could I be a Czech bureaucrat or sysop instead / together with him? Removing of some deleted test is heavily needed. -- V. Z. 15:15, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Separation from admins

I think admin and bureaucrat could be separated. That is, one does not have to be an administrator to become a bureaucrat. I am not sure if this is technically a feasible arrangement, but if I think about the aspect of wikipedia's self-governance this makes sense. Giving bureaucrat status for non-admins would bring less concentration of power, and more checks-and-balances. Not that concentration of power or abuse thereof is a serious issue where I am usually active (Japanese wikipedia). Just a thought. Tomos 22:23, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. And the bureaucrats should be elected by overwhelming majority of users. (Maybe even without any voice against this candidate).
--DIG 03:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I disagree entirely. If you are a bureaucrat, you can make yourself an admin. Requirements for admin are fairly lax, if you can't even meet them you should not be a bureaucrat. There are still some things that an admin can do that can not be fixed; a rogue bureaucrat could make a bunch of vandals into admins and they could thoroughly kill a site. —Ben Brockert < 00:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Technically adminship and bureaucratship are separate. Bureaucrats may grant local users adminship with or without bureaucratship, but they cannot promote users into bureaucrats without adminship. If a user with adminship and bureaucratship wants to relinquish either user class, a request may be sent to Steward requests/Permissions. Likewise, when requesting demotion of someone else with adminship and bureaucratship, which user class to remove should be specified.--Jusjih 03:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More power to the bureaucrat

I am the bureaucrat of the Hebrew Wikipedia, and I feel uneasy that I can't remove sysop rights from a user that I have nominated to be a sysop (I must ask a steward to do this for me, after the vote for removing the sysop has ended). This asymmetry makes me very careful, too careful, before nominating a new sysop. There was only one case that I badly needed to unsysop someone, but it still bothers me. Removal of sysop rights will be done according to the current procedure, but after the vote has ended the bureaucrat should be able to do the rest of the task. David Shay 19:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagreed. I understand you are very careful and it is unease. A friend of mine, a bureaucrat, is also awareful like you, David, he strongly opposed to the term introduction or recall, because if so, a danger of sysop vandalism by a desperate sysop will arise in his opinion. Perhaps he become too careful. But from the another view it is not good in general power concentrates to (a) individual(s), (see also the above, Tomos' comment). I don't know it is feasibly possile, but how about desysops by multiple bureaucrats or sysops? For example, three sysops set a desysop flag on an admin, then first the latter one will be desysoped. But in my opinion the current policy "A person (steward precisely) who doesn't belong to the interested community will desysop someone" is better. --Aphaia | WQ2翻訳中 | talk 20:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I believe that a Wikipedia community should be autonumous, and not to be dependant on help from the outside. The desysop function will be used after a vote in the community, and not just by the decision of the bureaucrat. Maybe I should have given the header of this discussion the title "More power to the local Wikipedia community". David Shay 22:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I do not think we (the stewards) are the outside really..., but by being a bit separated from the community, we ensure our feelings do not impact our decisions. A sysop is normally a trusted person, who do not need to be desysoped in urgency (or, your election system is likely broken ?). The stewards are only tools for you to use, just as you ask help from developers if needed. It was on purpose, to avoid flames in a community that unsysoping was not a tool given to bureaucrats. Also, electing a bureaucrat is very easily done. Sometimes, one may get a bureaucrat without any vote. It would be problematic to give such a "huge" power to people who sometimes have not even be elected (such as on small projects). Anthere
Hi, Anthere, since it was you that did the desysoping for me when I neededed it, I am sure that I can count on you if there will be another such case. David Shay 18:33, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If there is ever an emergency needing Steward attention, just start YELLING on #wikimedia and/or #wikipedia on IRC. I'm on IRC (with the nick mav) for at least 12 hours a day (I'm mav-away when I'm not at my computer) and Angela and Anthere are on very often as well. --Daniel Mayer 20:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Easier, go to #wikimedia-stewards and type !steward :) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Desysop inactive sysops?

Should I start a desysoping process of sysops who ceased being active long time ago, or should they remain sysops forever? Inactive sysop does no harm, you may say, so why bother? Well, I was not worried till an impostor tried to take the place of an inactive sysop. David Shay 19:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] desysop ability

Recent events (see the English Wikipedia bureaucrat log and [1]) reveal that it's possible for at least one bureaucrat, on en:, to remove sysop access. Questions arise:

  1. Is this possible on all wikis, or just on the English Wikipedia?
  2. Is this possible for all bureaucrats, or is there something about Ed Poor's previous developer ability that allowed him to do this? (He's not a steward as far as I know.)
  3. If the former, who switched this feature on, and why?

Does anyone know anything about this? —Charles P. 20:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Anthere does:

From [2]


It came to my understanding that Ed just unsysoped 4 people on the english wikipedia.
This is not correct. Whatever the reason why he did it (rules for desysoping are not my concern), Ed was not allowed to do it.
First : desysoping should only be done by stewards, and only under strict community approval. In this case, Ed is not steward, so is not allowed to do so.
Second : Ed removed the status with his developer flag, directly in the database. This is again incorrect. Developers should not remove status to editors, unless there is an urgency. And given the names of the people unsysoped, I do not think there was an urgency.
Third : Jamesday indicated me that Ed is not a developer. Him having developer flag is a residue of old times (ah :-)). We try to give developer flag only to developers.
For all these reasons, I asked JamesDay to remove Ed developer flag. Consider it technical cleanup. Ed, I love you very much, you know that do you ? But you are not really a developer, and definitly not a steward. I am sorry Ed.
[. . .]
Anthere 19:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So I have no further questions. —Charles P. 20:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Desysop ability proposal

Bureaucrat can perform desysop indirectly with new voting mechanism. Only sysop can give "vote" to a desysop proposal. Say, when it have 2/3 of all sysop votes in that wiki, then mediawiki will automatically desysop that person. --Borgx 04:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contact a bureaucrat

How can I contact a bureaucrat? 193.154.194.38 09:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(from the better-late-than-never department) Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat ~Kylu (u|t) 02:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] age

Do you have to be a specific age to be a bureaucrat?--Dummmmmmy 22:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Majorly (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Only user classes such as Checkuser, Oversight and Steward etc. are age-selective. AnonymousDissident 23:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
These three user classes require minimum age while involving very sensitive privacy concern, so candidates must identify themselves to the Foundation. Other user classes like bureaucrats and administrators do not involve such a sensitive concern, so theoretically a person not having become a teenager may be eligible to be an administrator or a bureaucrat.--Jusjih 03:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update instructions on how to grant bot flag?

The instructions at the bottom of this page on how to grant a bot flag refer the reader to the page mw:Extension:MakeBot, which is marked with a tag at the top saying that it's obsolete. I guess bureaucrats are now supposed to use Special:Userrights, not Special:MakeBot, to grant the bot flag. I suggest that the instructions on this page be updated to show that. ☺ Coppertwig 20:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It isn't completely unused. I personally use Makebot to flag bots, so the rights log isn't clogged up, and it's easy to see what's been made a bot. Majorly talk 20:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The obsolete tag just tells others that they should use the core functionality on their personal wiki rather than the extension. FunPika 20:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bureaucrat"