Wikipedia:Interface administrators' noticeboard

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

The following interface administrator(s) are inactive:

• Writ Keeper (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— JJMC89 bot 23:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent a query to user... — xaosflux ^Talk 00:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done user has become active again. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This trend (which has now happened twice) of asking interface administrators before removing their rights seems wrong to me. The community has deliberately set an activity policy with no notification rules - they should not be added on by fiat. This isn't just theoretical grumbling - there's a distinction between the wishful thought that someone would like to retain their rights, and actually caring enough to request them back at BN, and we've ended up on the wrong side of that divide. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery I know I normally just pull these (see most of the requests at Wikipedia:Interface_administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_3) - but know there are some that are very likely going to go through the revolving door at BN so tried to avoid needless button pushing. Certainly wouldn't of objected if another crat had got around to removing it first though. Keep in mind, that just like editors, crats are never required to act on anything. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should increase the bot's threshold to 1 year. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, 6 months is fine as is. People who aren't actively using the iadmin tools should not have them. If anything it's too long IMO. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem like gaming the system, albeit explicitly encouraged by Xaosflus! In general, I think pulling rights without any notification is rude. It would be better to get them back into active service, than losing them. But I would like to see a consistent approach - either everyone gets a notification or no one does. And I would like to see a real return to activity rather than gaming the rules — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(didn't know this thread was still going) Then hopefully this allays your concerns. The thing is that there aren't actually that many intadmin actions to go around; it doesn't take much at all to miss the few that are come around and are actually actionable. If the conclusion about *that* is that we should have fewer intadmins, then like I said to Xaosflux on my talk page, I don't actually mind the bit being pulled. But it certainly does make me less inclined to actually help out with the tasks when they come up, for paperwork reasons if nothing else, so, y'know, whatever people think is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is a better example I guess for you, since any admin can delete a js page (but I agree with your point). Galobtter (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: Not in the Mediawiki namespace. :) See also User_talk:Extraordinary_Writ#Mediawiki:Sandbox.js. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think one issue for me is that sometimes there's e.g. 8 months where nothing needs to be fixed with the gadgets I maintain, but when stuff has to be done it's better for me to do it myself than file a request (especially if many changes have to be done). The one time I got my intadmin bit pulled I asked for it back after 3 months for that reason. I'd personally favor increasing the inactivity to 1 year simply to reduce bureaucracy and since we only have 9 human intadmins right now, so there's no pressing reason to reduce the number (and probably we could do with a few more). Galobtter (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is the Master of Hedgehogs. I am requesting that my latest edit to my common.js, which installs the wikibreak enforcer, be removed.

2601:18A:8082:5390:1D4B:D752:5AFA:AD32 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says User:Master of Hedgehogs is not registered. Can you confirm the username please? –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah found it. It is User:The Master of Hedgehogs.  Done. I wouldn't normally edit someone's JS file without them being logged in, but this seems zero risk to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of defeats the object of a wikibreak enforcer :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could an interface administrator please undelete User:GeoffreyT2000/common.js and User:GeoffreyT2000/twinkleoptions.js? I would like them back. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following interface administrator(s) are inactive:

• Enterprisey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— JJMC89 bot 23:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done removed. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]