Project:Requests for permissions/User rights/Anonymous Dissident

Anonymous Dissident[edit]

Requested user-rights: Bureaucrat.

Bureaucrat: In light of the creation of this page, and the relative lack of active bureaucrats, I would like to now place a request to fill the shoes. I know my way around the interface form experience on WS, and I haven't yet made any stuff ups there, so I think I'd be suitable. Cheers, --Anon Diss 08:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much in the way of rename requests quite yet, we should really encourage non-admins to use this time to get renames straightened out before they all start having this problem. I don't have any issue with this, but if you could snag an opinion from another bureaucrat or developer first, I'd appreciate it? :) Kylu 16:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you'd like an endorsement from someone who isn't a bcrat or developer then you have mine. I don't think another bcrat is a bad idea, and AD will do a good job (probably ^_^) (but seriously AD, don't get overwhelmed with all your new buttons you've been getting lately...) Majorly (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On hold Please, if you're interested, leave this request here. Turns out there are some "hiccups" with account merging and we're waiting to see what the results of the patch are. I'm told by one of the shell users that we don't need any more bureaucrats here until the workload increases. Just imagine what it'll be like when general public accounts have to start getting merged! Kylu 02:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need bureaucrats? Voice of All is pretty much the only active bureaucrat who has made more than 50 edits this year. I don't see how more aren't needed.... but I'm willing to wait. I'm not sure I understand why I am being put into limbo land though, while this patch issue goes over... how does this affect my request? Also, not to seem over-eager, but how long a wait are we talking? Weeks? Months? --Anon Diss 05:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also know I have requested an opinion from bcrat and developer VOA. Anon Diss 05:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I was asked about promoting more bureaucrats, I was told: "You've had, what, one rename request? No, we don't need more at the moment." I don't know the timeframe, sorry. If you'd prefer to be declined instead of on-hold, that's fine. I thought you'd appreciate being first when we end up needing more. Kylu 13:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think we need any more crats for now and since Tim has disabled Special:CentralAuth for now, it best to leave it as it is but if the need arises, AnonDiss is also my first choice..--Comet styles 13:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've had a grand total of eight user rights changes and ten renames so far this year (of which, incidentally, VoA has done one, Kylu two, Bdk five, and I nine). I just recently got a few rename requests in a row and foresaw many more to come. I remarked on this in #wikimedia-tech, and Kylu volunteered to help. I had seen her around and knew she was highly trustworthy, so I promoted her. If we end up needing more bureaucrats, or you can otherwise convince VoA or someone to promote you, you'll be promoted. Until then, not. Since I can't personally vouch for you, I'm not going to personally endorse your promotion or promote you unless we actually need more bureaucrats.
It's not clear we need more bureaucrats. It depends on whether people are willing to step up and take on the rename load. We already have eight bureaucrats, compared to for instance 3 on dewiki: almost three times the number with a ridiculously tiny percentage of the load. Of course, it might be that everywhere is going to need more bureaucrats to handle SUL load. We'll see. Maybe giving sysops rename rights would be a more sensible course of action to handle it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 13:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was needed. No-one is needed. You are not needed. Neither is Kylu. If such a remark is valid, then no admins or any other access would still be constantly promoted all around Wikimedia today. Just because I'm not needed doesn't mean I couldn't be useful in helping out. The fact is that hardly any of the bureaucrats are active at all - many have barely even made edits this year. But if you insist (Kylu) on my request being put on hold, then I don't care. I'll wait. --Anon Diss 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the bureaucrats are active, but they don't edit much here. They are still able to respond to issues. Also, I think Simetrical means "would likely improve something/be worth it" when he says "needed". In that case I'd have to agree. When I became a "bureaucrat", it was because I asked to be a Sysop to clear some vandalism; River decided to also make me a bureaucrat on her own accord. I suspect she just didn't feel like being pinged in #mediawiki about Sysop requests anymore. At any rate, with higher level permissions that are very annoying if abused, rights are not handed out as liberally. If there is some potential gain likely worth the risk, people will get it. If a flood of SUL requests comes, then you would have a good chance of getting it. Anytime you requests special permissions without some practical rationale people will be weary and might suspect you want to collect them like little badges/rights (like Essjay unfortunately). I'm not saying that is the case, but it is possible. Anyway, the use of more bureaucrats is just an ad hoc practical thing. If someone "promoted" you now, I wouldn't really care. On the other hand, I don't see the use. If someone was promoting people left and right, then I might complain. When SUL is on for all users, things my change. So the point here is to have the site maintained well, and not to be 100% consistent. Aaron 05:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider me firmly in the "No need to" camp. As Simetrical said, the load isn't really there (maybe when there's a backlog on the requests page it'll be a good idea). As Simetrical said, there are probably better solutions to the problem. AnonDiss is not a developer, and the tantrum above doesn't really favourably dispose bureaucrats to handing out user rights, especially not bureaucrat rights. Werdna 01:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. How childish, to suggest I'm having a tantrum. I'm merely trying to negotiate the reasoning behind the comments. Take your patronising attitude elsewhere. No, I'm not a developer - I fail to see how that reflects on my ability to be a bcrat. Creating another user class is making a mountain out of a molehill, especially on such a quiet wiki. --Anon Diss 05:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, Werdna that's hardly a tantrum. He was very nice about this, considering how little deal the tools are and the fuss that's being made here over nothing. Majorly (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow I didn't even know that it was possible to do that (rename rights for sysops) but if its possible, that may be the best option...--Comet styles 14:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User rights are very configurable. You could even make a usergroup ("renamers" maybe?) that only had that one tool. If you check m:User:Kylu/permissions you'll see a semi-steward "manager" right I came up with for test.wikipedia, which specifies exactly what rights can and can't be removed. I think, if nobody objects, I'm going to make this section for AnonDiss into a subpage and just link to it here as "Pending promotions" or similar. Cometstyles, if you're interested in custom userrights, let me know. I've got a ton of ideas and know how to implement them. :D Kylu 15:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to withdraw my request. I didn't expect this level of drama over this, and I don't much like the feeling of being hung in suspense indefinitely. If the need rises considerably, perhaps I might request again. --Anon Diss 20:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]