WikiIndex talk:Bureaucrats

Hi! I request adminship and cratship, but if is not good, only sysop...Erwin 08:59, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

Why do you need sysop rights - after about 22 edits? --Wolf | talk 11:09, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

For helping with spam, vandalism, deleting page with nonsens etc. Erwin 11:11, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

Erwin no. You are asking bureaucrat rights everywhere. It's not a toy! CartoonistHenning 12:46, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

I see. --Wolf | talk 14:01, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

I'm not crazy, I know it... \\Erwin 14:12, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

Yes, you are only a little impatient - let's see what time will bring. --Wolf | talk 14:42, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

Well, it looks like he didn't like to be told to wait, threw his toys out of his crib, and hasn't been seen again - Special:Contributions/Erwin!!! Patience is a virtue . . . Hoof Hearted • talk2HH 10:01, 8 September 2012 (PDT)

Disadvantages to giving Bureaucrat status to all sysops?

Would like to know what folks think they are. Best, MarkDilley

Hi Mark, keep in mind, that bureaucrats cannot only grant, but also revoke rights. The most important trait of a bureaucrat is their ability to act in a circumspectly and peaceful (I hope I made understandable English here). After all, I think a few more bureaucrats would be good. Regards --Wolf | talk 06:58, 31 January 2012 (PST)

Another reason why not to give bureaucrat status at the same time as sysop - existing 'crats need to be satisfied that a new sysop conducts their new duties in an appropriate manner - learn to walk before you can run and all that! Hoof Hearted • talk2HH 10:01, 8 September 2012 (PDT)

Bureaucrat rights are a dangerous thing to abuse, and as such it would not be the best course of action to entrust all sysops with bureaucrat access. That being said, our current list of crats shows 1-2 active users, 5 inactive users, and the web host. Another bureaucrat or two would not be a bad idea, as long as security is held in high importance. Elassint 8 September 2012

Wolf and Mark are the two active crats (if I assessed that correctly). I suppose it also depends on weather the site owner wishes to be more 'hands off' or not, or wishes to include all of the 'admin team' with equal rights and responsibilites. All that being said, I would nominate Tera - she is increadibly trustworthy and level-headed, and would have no doubt she would keep WI on an even keel. I suppose it would be handy if we knew the reason why Mark asked the question in the first instance!! Hoof Hearted • talk2HH 13:46, 8 September 2012 (PDT)

What are the abuses a bureaucrat could do? On another wiki - I gave all known WikiPeople bureaucrat status. I grew up on flat wikis, so don't know much about the MediaWiki step system...well a little :-) Also, this is a community wiki. John, Ray and I co-founded it. Many others have done amazing work here. Best, MarkDilley

The worst thing that could happen is a bureaucrat could merge and delete user accounts, but I checked Special:Version and we clearly do not have that unnecessary extension installed, so that worry is for naught. Once we install the UserRename extension sooner or later, bureaucratship will be required to rename users. Bureaucrats can revoke bureaucratship as well, but that should probably not be a problem with our stable community. Elassint 8 September 2012

Ummm... Thank you for the confidence in me HH... I know that I have messed up here and there, but I hope that overall what I have done has been for the best of the community at large... I haven't been as active in the day-to-day management of WI, mostly for the speed of other Admins in getting to the spam here, but I do check on the site regularly, sometimes 10 or 20 times a day, and I have to admit that I look at every edit just in case... I do think that I need to question things a bit more, I have made some mistakes in reversing an edit a couple of times that I should have looked further into... Anyway... Thank you again for thinking of me... should Mark or the rest of the Admins want to give me that status, I will do my best for WI... TeraS (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2012 (PDT)

Tera - I think, hand on heart, we have all made the odd mistake now and then. Personally, I don't see 'mistakes' as a big deal - they are very easily rectified, and we all have slightly different, but complimentary skill sets on this wiki. I nominated you because you run your own MediaWiki site, so have the necessary experience. <hugs> :-)

I'm also aware that Elassint seems to have a very good grasp with MediaWiki - though I'm not sure if s/he runs their own MediaWiki site ....

Finally, don't we have a couple of MediaWiki / SMW devs on this wiki? I think Kghbln (definately an active contributor here, and highly talented) and Yaron Koren are both certainly up to the job of being a crat. And I also think Emijrp should also be a crat, based on his awesome knowledge of bots.

Mark, whoever or whatever you decide, I personally would support increasing the number of crats here on WikiIndex. Best regards, Hoof Hearted • talk2HH 02:53, 27 September 2012 (PDT)

False statements

Bureaucrats are not the highest level, and they do not have the same abilities as higher groups. The "staff" group is above bureaucrats and can do more than crats can. Also, crats do not have the 'userrights' permission, so saying that they can edit user rights in general is inaccurate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:18, 2 February 2017 (PST)