[This is a request for bureaucratship] For those that don't know me, I've been an administrator around here since November 27, and am an admin on the English Wikipedia, Commons, and Meta (the latter two being language-independent projects like Wikispecies), and am also a bureaucrat of a Wikia project. I'd like to add another active bureaucrat to the ranks here, simply to keep things running if one or two of them are on vacation (as is the case right now).
Admittedly, it's not like there are many RfAs around here, but hey, I figure I could still help out now and then. Who knows, maybe we'll have some sort of massive renaming emergency sometime. :) EVula// talk // ☯ // 21:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Poll starts 21:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC); poll ends 21:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC). Ucucha(talk) 17:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Poll closed; EVula is a bureaucrat now. Ucucha(talk) 14:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
But I really think we should set +crat for all admins. This is a small wiki, and bureaucratship here is just a few extra buttons, and we can trust all admins to do it. Maxim(talk) 02:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we should, indeed, instead of putting +crat on all admins, have anyone who *wants* to be a crat, and who is actually active, standing, so as to flush out those who are simply too inactive to actually notice this revelation. I don't care either way; I'd prefer it anyway if I could be placed under review, by the small community here, to judge whether I am suitable on a personal basis.
I've been an admin for almost 2 months now, and I am an admin on four other wikis, including enwp and meta-wiki. Over my time on Wikimedia, I have learned the general customs of being around, and, further, while I've been on Wikispecies, I feel I have become fairly intimate with it's unique way of doing things. Therefore, I think I would be able to adequately step into the shoes of bureaucrat.
Finally, I think it may be prudent to do some cleanup... as Monobi has noted on WS:V, it might be time to remove the bits from some highly inactive people, and that would include more than a few of the current crats. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Poll starts 5:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC); poll ends 5:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC). Ucucha(talk) 17:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Poll closed; Anonymous Dissident is a bureaucrat now. Ucucha(talk) 14:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Per my support in EVula's RfB. Maxim(talk) 12:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ucucha(talk) 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC) and agreeing with introductory statement
Being a sysop for 3 days gives me all the experience I need to become a 'crat </joke>. I'll throw myself into the mix, but I'd rather it be standard practice for both the sysop and and the 'crat flag to be given at the same time. Confirmation for the current sysops is the best way to go about this, however. Likewise I'm adding myself. Mønobi 20:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Poll starts 20:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC); poll ends 20:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC). Ucucha(talk) 17:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Poll closed; Monobi is a bureaucrat now. Ucucha(talk) 19:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Per my comments in EVula's and AnonDiss' RfBs. Maxim(talk) 20:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not as big a fan of the "everyone's a 'crat!" idea as everyone else is. I'm neutral only because of Monobi's relative newness to being a WS administrator, and does not reflect poorly on them as a contributor to the project. EVula// talk // ☯ // 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
After watching others and giving myself a day to think about it, I decided to run for RfB. I have been actively editing, doing maintenance works, as well as helping new users on WikiSpecies. I visit here on daily basis so if there is any emergency, I will be available very quickly. Therefore I choose to step up and nominate myself for bureaucratship. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Poll starts 7:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC); poll ends 7:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC). Ucucha(talk) 17:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Poll closed (I realise I am heaps early, but, eh, no big difference). Is now 'crat. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not as big a fan of the "everyone's a 'crat!" idea as everyone else is. I'm neutral only because of OhanaUnited's relative newness to being a WS administrator, and does not reflect poorly on them as a contributor to the project. EVula// talk // ☯ // 17:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Such others, I decided to candidate myself for bureaucrat. I am admin on pt-wiki, and on wikispecies I have been sysop since May 13, and during this period I think I made my functions as sysop. Despite I have not English as native language, I'm requesting the bureaucratship. Thanks :) -- Dario and Mario 21:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Poll starts 21:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC); 21:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC). OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been a sysop here for a bit, and I think I could be of some benefit with the bureaucrat flag. The main reason is because I sometimes use high-speed scripts to do some maintenance tasks; quickly flagging myself as a bot (and unflagging when done) can help unclog recent changes. While bots go through approval, I think this is more of a case were not showing 50 deletions in a row in recent changes is a convenience to us all. Finally, I'm of the belief on small project such as this, being having both the admin and 'crat bits doesn't hurt. Maxim(talk) 01:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Poll starts 01:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC); poll ends 01:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Though I'd actually prefer you to use a separate bot account. Ucucha(talk) 15:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That'd require adding +sysop +bot to it. It's less hassle and more easily traceable if I'd give me a bot flag for five mins to complete my task with minimal disruption. :-) Maxim(talk) 20:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I also recommend using a separate bot account. However, you can assign sysop & bot flag to your bot without asking us just like Monobi did to his bot (as long as it's for legitimate use) OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That's completely O.K., too. Maxim(talk) 01:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[This is a request for bureaucratship]
I have been editing here since november 2004, and I am admin since 12 July 2005, although i was pretty absent during years when there was more activity here, and several active sysops. This situation seems to have changed now, and out of present 25 admins, 6 admins has not been active during the last 5 years. Out of 13 present bureaucrats, the same 6 users has not been active during the last 5 years. The latest election for a bureaucrat was 12 January 2008 (2 bureaucrats were elected in 2005, 6 were elected in 2008). As Wikispecies develops there may be a need of especially more sysops (active users), and eventually a couple of more bureaucrats?
Dan Koehl (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Poll started 11:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC), poll ends 11:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC). OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like to nominate User:Tommy Kronkvist as bureaucrat. Since exactly one year ago (2014-04-13), I have nominated 7 users as admins to cover up for the inactive admins, and an increasing need of administrators in a growing Wikispecies. One year ago, out of 25 admins, 6 admins had not been active during the last 5 years, and I think by now, we have a much stronger organisation. I believe there may be a need for more active admins since we will soon shorten the present list of admins with at least three admins due to inactivity, but I presently see a more important need for one, or a couple of, new bureaucrats. I was elected last year, and before that, the latest election for a bureaucrat was 12 January 2008 (2 bureaucrats were elected in 2005, 6 were elected in 2008). The list of 9 bureaucrats simply doesn't reflect the reality, and since User:OhanaUnitedretired 2014-11-12, in reality I was single active bureaucrat. Lately, I wish to step back a little bit, primarily of the reason that I'm afraid of becoming too much "Wikispecies bureaucrat" and profile myself so much, so it becomes negative for the community. I have no plans at all to leave, but simply want more users to take a more active part in administration, and furthermore, try to make the entire community more active and engaged in development of the project. To suggest a bureaucrat is not as easy as suggesting a new admin, and after three negative answers, Tommy Kronkvist gave me me a positive response. Im very happy because of this, since Tommy is an old timer here, after me and MFP the third user with longest activity (if Im not wrong?), active on Wikispecies since almost ten years, and as a character often besides article contributions, assist other users with a helping hand, and in general takes a responsibility for the project as such. During his admin nomination a year ago Tommy wrote: it is my firm intention to redirect most of my wiki-work towards Wikispecies rather than Wikipedia. The reason for this is simply that I feel I can contribute in a better way here. I have made quite a large number of edits to Wikipedia (albeit mainly to the Swedish language version of it). Therefore it is time for me to shift focus to the somewhat narrower fields of taxonomy and systematics, simply because they are more in line with my interests than the "all you can eat" approach of Wikipedia. which one year later can be confirmed. I believe that Tommy Kronkvist can benefit Wikispecies a lot, in the role of bureaucrat, and become a helpful and active bureaucrat, in a time when the list of bureaucrats simply is fiction. This said, my opinion, is that we shall not anymore keep admins and bureaucrats on the list as a honorary title, when it comes to users who are inactive, I suggest we use our phantasy, and establish other forms for how we can do this, because a list of admins and bureaucrats should reflect active users working actively within that scope, and not be a long term honor title, which may confuse new users who search for help. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I would like to nominate User:MPF as bureaucrat. Since I gave a lenghtly motivation for my nomination of User:Tommy Kronkvist above, I will not repeat that content, although it applies also for MPF. I just want to add that MPF has been active on Wikispecies more than ten years, he is also admin on Commons, and was one of the first users I asked for a bureaucrat nomination, which he politely rejected. Since then, more users mentioned MPF as a good choice, why I very stubbornly repeated my request, and today finally had MPFs accept of being nominated Dan Koehl (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I would like to change my own user access levels when doing bot-type actions (but I do not have a bot account as I don't know how to make bots, nor do I regularly perform bot-like actions--I just find runs to do with AWB) and to change other user access levels or names as necessary. If other users feel like we have enough bureaucrats around here, then I will happily keep my admin status. For the consideration of the community, I should point out that I made the very controversial choice to unblock User:Stho002 several months ago. Some may find that poor enough judgement to keep me from gaining further user access levels. If you have any questions, please post them here and I will respond. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Poll started 02:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC). Poll ends 02:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC). Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: This obviously won't pass and with good reason, so if you want to call it early, you can. Thanks for your feedback everyone--it's constructive and instructive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@Koavf: Sorry but nope, I can't do that. The poll has already started, and I find it inappropriate to end it before the stated end date. Some users might have noticed that there is a poll going on, just not yet have made up their minds, or had the time to vote. We can't get into a habit of closing polls prematurely simply because we like (or dislike) the excepted outcome. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: It's not a matter of not liking it--I pointed out that their reasons are good. Either way, it won't hurt for it to finish. Thanks again for eveyrone's feedback. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Being a bureaucrat is not simply a matter of convenience. I see neither a need nor a reason to extend bureaucrat standing in this request. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Changing your "own user access levels when doing bot-type actions"? - Feeling more comfortable, when four eyes are involved, before the bot-type action is starting. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Not ready at this point, as his answers to bot policy and operation are not in line with the rules. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Notwithstanding Koavf's commitment & eagerness to improve WS, I make no bones about it: someone who didn't edit even a single species page for content isn't entitled to be a crat on WS. Mariusm (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I think everyone else has covered this, I agree. Basically not ready for this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I have a few questions for @Koavf: which I think he should answer before we get underway with voting:
Why are you so keen in becoming a crat when obviously you aren't interested in or contributing to the proper field of taxonomy? It is a major necessity in a site dedicated solely to taxonomic data.
What do you intend to do with the language-dependent-heading now that we have a poll draw?
Do you agree to bring major issues such as language dependent headings, unblocking of controversial users etc. to the community's scrutiny before going on to implement them?
What are the projects and plans you indent to pursue in the near future?
@Mariusm:: 1.) I don't know that it's obvious that I am disinterested in taxonomy: I have just focused on other maintenance tasks. I have added to the repository some and would like to more in the future. While having specialized knowledge is definitely a plus at this project, having an understanding of the technical and community aspects are also important. 2.) I will go back to the drawing board and finish translating, reach out to non-English speakers, and then contact all the "no" votes before I try to implement it on pages. 3.) I did with the localization—several times—but with controversial unblocking, that was definitely something that needed community input. 4.) I want to restructure categories (with community input), finish localization, redesign the main page, and see if I can work on pulling vernacular names from Wikidata. And I will continue with tasks that I have already done: translating, deleting geographical categories, routine maintenance of redirects, etc. I'd like to work on a template of an ideal page layout for authors, repositories, and species to apply to pages but that is longer-term. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Bot tagged AWB account?
Couldn't the AWB issues be dealt with through creating a bot tagged AWB account? Geni (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed they could, and according to the Wikimedia sock puppetry policies that would not constitute as inappropriate socking even if Koafv were to run both his "human" account as well as the "AWB account" at the same time. On the contrary: as it is considered a legitimate use of a suck puppet, it is actually encouraged. Requests for bot approval can be made here. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC).
I agree. Create a bot account and use AWB on that account. While some may see it as an unnecessary reason to request for bureaucratship, it does indicate your willingness to deal with approvals and issues in this area and therefore my questions will be focusing on this area. Given that there has been historic controversy over bots performing tasks, what are your thoughts if an account without a bot flag performing functions at a rate or pattern that resemble a bot? What about accounts which have a bot flag but performing edits outside of the approved scope? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: The nice thing about AWB is that it can be easily reverted, so if there were some problem or discrepancy with bot or bot-like actions, then they can be undone easily. Non-bot accounts should have a flood flag and unless they are doing something entirely uncontroversial (e.g. fixing misspelled categories), they should have a clear consensus—otherwise, it's a waste of everyone's time. Edits outside scope can still be useful (e.g. Unicodifying pages or subst:ing BASEPAGENAME), so even some small edits which are technically outside of scope are not a problem as such. If a bot is making some change outside of scope and policy, then I would have to ask why? Is this a mistake? A misunderstanding? Did someone accidentally port over rules from Wikipedia and post them here? My assumption would be that anyone using a bot out of scope would have some kind of miscommunication because it would just be a waste of time to make [x] thousand edits to be reverted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The reason I raised these questions is to see if you have a thorough understanding of bot policies, interpreting them and dealing with issues. Not all bots operate with AWB. And even if they do, I don't think anyone has done a comparison on whether AWB (which is based on en.wp rules) is fully compatible with our structure and page layout. This kind of blind trust towards AWB is slightly concerning but not deal-breaker. Fixing typos is fine. But edits outside the scope should be blocked as per policy. Given that bureaucrats have additional tools to assign and revoke bot flag yet there is a lack of understanding on bot policies as demonstrated in your response, I don't think I am ready to support at this point. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Since this thread is somewhat unrelated to the above poll regarding a request for bureaucratship I suggest we continue the discussion in the new thread "Bot tagged AWB account" at the Administrators' Noticeboard instead. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC).
Changing own user access levels
It is not exclusive to this particular request for bureaucratship, but one should remember that any one of Wikispecies' bureaucrats can promote a user to administrator and/or bureaucrat status. However, none of the bureaucrats or admins can then remove that status! Contrary to other permission groups (such as patrollers and bots) demotion of admin/bureaucrat status can only be done by a Meta-Wiki Steward. We have zero stewards in our own user base, so removing crat or sysop rights is a lot more work than adding them. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC).
The above poll is closed, including the related discussion (if any).Please do not modify it.
The following poll is closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to nominate User:Faendalimas as bureaucrat. I have nominated 13 users as admins, and 2 users as bureaucrats, and I think by now, we have a much stronger organisation, but I presently see a more important need for new bureaucrats. The list of 9 bureaucrats simply doesn't reflect the reality, mostly theres only 3 crats present on the project. myself and Tommy, and very occasionally Ohana. And that list will soon be shortened, since at least 4 crats are inactive.
I believe that Faendalimas can benefit Wikispecies a lot in the role of bureaucrat, and become a helpful and active bureaucrat, in a time when the present list of bureaucrats simply is fiction. He has already showed an interest for administrative duties, like editing local policy documents and such. And I want to repeat my opinion, that we shall not anymore keep admins and bureaucrats on the list as a honorary title, when it comes to users who are inactive, I suggest we use our phantasy, and establish other forms for how we can honor them, because a list of admins and bureaucrats should reflect active users working actively within that scope, and not be a long term honor title, which may confuse new users who search for help.
Faendalimas, being a professional Taxonomist, with good wiki experience and an interest of developing the WS administration, has been here for over ten years now, and I am sure he will benefit WS actively in the role of bureaucrat. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks, muito obrigado, I accept this nomination. I look forward to working in this role if accepted. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Poll started 12.00:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC), poll ends 12.00:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC). Dan Koehl (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)