Wiktionary:Administrators

From Wiktionary

Jump to: navigation, search

Administrators, also called admins or sysops (system operators), are editors that have access to special features that help keep Wiktionary running smoothly. They have access to these features because they are trusted by the community, but this does not make them better or more important than anybody else.

Contents

[change] Things they can do

This is the symbol of administrators. It shows the site's logo with a mop, because administrators can be thought of as Wiktionary's janitors.
Reverted changes by User A (talk) to last version by User B

[change] Bureaucrats

A bureaucrat is a slightly higher administrative level than sysop and can perform a few additional functions. Bureaucrats can give sysop or bureaucrat status to other users after a successful request below. Bureaucrats can also help users who want to change their user names. They can also "flag" bots, which hides a user's contributions from the new changes and puts them in the bot group. Requests for name changes should be made on the talk page of one of the listed bureaucrats.

[change] List of administrators

You can look at an automatic list at Special:Listusers/sysop

[change] Active

[change] Inactive

[change] Requests for administrator/bureaucrat rights

Shortcut:
WT:RFA
WT:RFB

If you want to be an administrator or bureaucrat you can request it here. Use the code below for your request.

===[[User:your user name]]===

[change] Requests for administrator attention

[change] "Good site" vandal

Please take note that the "vandal" behind this is actually a spambot editing on open proxies. They should be blocked on sight (but please confirm that it is an open proxy!). For more information, you might want to see here. Chenzw  Talk  07:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching and they don't reuse the same IP address, so I don't see much point in blocking them. Any other suggestions?--Brett 03:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The reason why they don't reuse the same IP address is because it probably cycles through open proxies to edit from, therefore, never allowing someone to be able to pin that particular IP address down as one that is used by the good site vandal. Speaking of the good site vandal, it also attacked the Simple English Wikipedia, replacing the content of pages with Hi. Good site! or variations of that. I would have to agree with Chenzw here. Any IP address that can be definitely connected to the Good site vandal should most likely be blocked on sight. Of course, it would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but otherwise, I think it would be fine on a case-by-case basis. Cheers, Razorflame 23:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

[change] Protection of templates that are highly visible

Hi there all. I would like to propose that some of the highest risk and visible templates, like {{noun}}, {{verb}}, {{countable}}, {{uncountable}}, {{transitive}}, {{intransitive}}, {{adjective}}, {{adverb}} and any other templates that are highly visible be semi-protected indefinitely as both a precautionary measure against vandalism and to protect them from any form of malicious tampering or editing of those pages, as well as {{plural of}}, {{third-person singular of}}, {{past tense and participle of}}, and {{present participle of}}, but first, I would like to hear what the community has to say about these before I make a request for the protection of these pages. Cheers, Razorflame 18:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and semi-protected some of the most visible templates here indefinitely to prevent tampering by vandals and malicious users. Please let me or any of the other active administrators know if you think they should be unprotected. Cheers, Razorflame 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that protection should only be used when something has actually been vandalized. Admittedly, I haven't checked if these have been subject to vandalism, but the comment makes it sound like it is only a preventative measure. As such, I disagree. Anytime one of these pages is vandalized (maybe twice or three times to prove there's actually a problem), it should be protected. But if it ain't broke, don't fix it, IMHO. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

[change] Desysopping of Flcelloguy and Gmcfoley

Hi there all. I would like to propose the removal of the sysop bit from these two users due to inactivity:

Both of these users has been inactive for more than 2 years, with little to no administrative actions since then. I would therefore propose that their sysop bit be removed due to inactivity. It can be reinstated upon their return, but in the meantime, while they are inactive, we don't really need them to have the sysop tool due to their inactivity. What do you all think about it? Razorflame 01:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that on English Wikipedia, inactive administrators don't have the sysop bit removed. If they ever come back, it's more welcoming if they're still administrators and don't have to ask for the bit. Someone said that inactive accounts are less likely to be used by other people in bad ways than active accounts. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright. That is good to know. Consider this discussion finished, then. Cheers, Razorflame 03:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I support the removing of the sysop bit from the two users in question. Since they have not edited since 2006, it is highly likely that they will not be editing here again. (If they ever do of course, they can be given the rights back). Adminship should not just be kept, but used. Maximillion Pegasus 01:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Just making my comment more clear: I oppose desysopping just because of inactivity. See w:en:Wikipedia talk:Inactive administrators. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to again, ask the community if they would be willing to desysop the two users in question. If they haven't made any edits since 2006, I do not believe that their flags should be kept because they are not very likely to come back. However, if they do come back (which I doubt), they can always re-apply for the admin flag if they request it. Razorflame 18:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Coppertwig on this one. I, too, am a relatively inactive admin (as is visible above), but I think that as long as the contributions I do make are good and in good faith, my admin status should pretty much never be revoked. What's the harm of leaving it? Does it actually hurt anything? If at one time they proved their trustworthiness, I think it should require a proof of untrustworthiness for that status to be removed. Plus, it is cool that when I do show up (once in a blue moon, admittedly), I can just pick up more or less where I left off. And I think that's true for these two as well. Now, if the consensus is to remove the admin status for admins that have been inactive for a long time, I would ask that we definitely inform the people concerned of the change (by email, probably) and I would have to differentiate between the two currently under consideration: gmcfoley was I think the very first sysop here. Ironically, even though he has more recently edited (and more recently performed an admin action), he has made clear that he either does not plan to continue editing here or does not see a need to have sysop status (I forget which). I think our discussion on it is in the Simple talk archives somewhere, or maybe the archives here. Therefore, I would be more inclined to de-sysop him than Flcelloguy, who has never said anything of the sort, though I think he has mentioned that he is and will continue to be more active on other wikis. Either way, I'm cool with consensus. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Just thought I'd say that English Wikipedia is one of the few wikis that does not desysop inactive administrators. Microchip08 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I oppose desysoping administrators on the grounds of inactivity. I understand the argument that they can request their rights back immediately if they return, but going through this extra step just seems like a pointless expenditure of energy. Besides, what harm are inactive sysops doing to the project? Tempodivalse @en.wikinews 21:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[change] Spam

Thanks for the welcome Razorflame left on my new talk page! I'm active with cross-wiki-spam cleanup; this is a small enough project (for now) that if someone spams this project, they're probably spamming others so feel free to leave me a note at User talk:A. B. to look into it (I'm automatically informed by e-mail of changes to my talk page here). Even if the spam is confined to this project, I'm still happy to help. If it's persistent and the spammer ignores warnings, blacklisting is more effective than account-blocking:

  • MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist -- This is your project's local blacklist; it only affects this project. Persistent spam that's confined to just this project goes on this blacklist. As of now, it's not been used. See w:en:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist for an example of what such a page looks like.
    • I can't edit your blacklist page since I'm not an admin here, but I'm an admin elsewhere and I'd be happy to provide the regex text strings for admins here to paste on to the list when you need to use it.
  • meta:Spam blacklist -- spam that hits more than Wikimedia Foundation project
    • meta:Talk:Spam blacklist is where you report cross-wiki spam; I or another meta admin will look into it and blacklist it

--A. B. 22:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to message me with the regexes that you get as I am an admin here and would definitely be willing to update the spam blacklist here as often as is needed. Cheers, Razorflame 01:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

[change] Requirements for RfAs

Hi there all. Brett put in his closure of Maximillion Pegasus's RfA that we should think about making the base requirements for becoming an administrator here, and I believe that we should discuss some requirements for becoming an administrator here. Does everyone agree with this, or is there some dissent about having requirements for RfAs here? Razorflame 18:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead.--Brett 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

[change] Proposal for RfA requirements

The following was taken from the English Wiktionary's talk page of their Wiktionary:Administrator page, and I believe that they would be great requirements here:

  • You've been actively participating at Wiktionary for a while (at least a month in most cases), making constructive edits
  • You understand at least the basic policies and conventions
  • You understand at least the basic formatting structure of Wiktionary entries and get it right at least most of the time (I don't expect perfection, so don't worry about that!)
  • You show that you learn from your mistakes.
  • You show a willingness to learn what you don't know and ask for help, advice and other opinions where needed
  • You get on well with all or almost the people you interact with, particularly established users (personality conflicts can happen, but do try not to antagonise them if they do)
  • You understand that other users may not know as much as you, or conversely, may know more than you do; and interact with them accordingly.

This was taken from a comment made by the user, Thryduulf, and I completely agree with him. Good requirements? Questions, comments? Agree or disagree? Cheers, Razorflame 19:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is great that we are actually setting out some rules for adminship, and I think now's a good time. Previously, it was sort of informal, but it is good to get something more specific figured out and written down. I think we should probably also include a minimum number of edits, so that someone who only edited once four months ago can't say, "Aha! I fit the requirements now!" Maybe 500 or 1000 edits or so. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not think that it is wise to impose a limit on the number of edits one needs to become an administrator. I think that so long as the user is making good contributions and understands the rules, policies, and regulations of the Simple English Wiktionary, even when he only has like 300-400 edits, I think that he should not be excluded from becoming an administrator....some of the best administrators on the Simple English Wikipedia have been ones that had fewer than 1,000 edits in the mainspace. Cheers, Razorflame 14:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
:P The users who become syops at Simple nowadays have only 1000 edits in all; so 400 is too great a number. I'd personally say 250 and 3 weeks before an RfA. Cheers, Pmlineditor 11:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

[change] Crosswiki abuse

There was recently a person/bot who was creating masses of accounts on most WMF projects. There's a pattern to it - each username has ten characters, and the first and sixth ones are always capitalised. I've noticed a few such usernames being created over here as well. (They have all been created from open proxies, as confirmed by checkuser at en.wn.) This is far too much of a pattern to possibly be a coincidence, so I'm requesting a block on those accounts, specifically TrocaCella (talk · contributions), ComonLetoc (talk · contributions), and RolviOrdro (talk · contributions). I believe the stewards have already been alerted to this. Thank you, Tempodivalse 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link to a discussion where this issue has been brought up on Meta or elsewhere? Is this user doing anything more than creating accounts which follow this pattern? Wouldn't a better solution be to block the open proxies themselves? I'd like a little more info before blocking. Thanks, · Tygrrr... 18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
There was a discussion at en.wikinews about this: see wikinews:Wikinews:Admin action alerts#Mass creation of accounts. Tempodivalse 18:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
See here. –Juliancolton | Talk`
Done. Brett got five of them, and I got the remainder that he missed. All socks have now been indefinitely blocked by either me or Brett. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! Cheers, Razorflame 01:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Administrators"
Personal tools