Feed The Beast Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard

2

Want

 * Pchart4mw? This could be cool for certain pages.
 * Editcount Added!

Want-not

 * Semantic Wiki/Semantic Forms Removed!
 * DataValues/DataValues Common/DataValues Geo/DataValues Interfaces/DataValues Validators

Will wait for any further comments plus a little extra time to get everything straight before pinging Gamepedia staff. Any extension we don't want or any extensions we have a fetish for? -Xbony2 (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When would we use the chart one? --  Satanic Santa F T B Wiki Admin 20:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good question. A couple of mods are mathematical in function like RotaryCraft. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Anybody else want/not want Pchart4mw? I'm mostly proposing it to see what others think about it. -Xbony2 (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would harm anyone to add it, I'm just not sure when we'd even use it :P --  Satanic Santa F T B Wiki Admin 23:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Xbony2 for Administrator/Bureaucrat
The reason I'm applying for both is because my current group proposal has them combined.

I'm Xbony2. I've been on this wiki for a fairly long time- I registered on wiki.feed-the-beast.com on July 15th, 2014. This is my first edit (you can see my userpage has evolved much since then). I became mod maintainer and part of staff on October 28th, 2014. But I didn't really start editing seriously until January 2015; during that month, I made at least a couple edits every day, usually more. Wiki editing slowly became my "major hobby" over programming mods. I figured out how to markup pages and deal with translation, and became translation administrator after a vote that started on the 21st of April 2015 and ended on May 4th (a few days after my birthday. Cool, huh?) (Retep announced it on May 5th, but the user rights change on the 4th).

Since then, I've been wiking away. I've [arguable] become the most active editor ever on the Feed The Beast Wiki, and one of the top editors on Gamepedia in general (trivia: I own a Gamepedia shirt, Gamepedia mug, Hydra plushie and some other junk after Gamepedia gave free stuff to the top 100 editors based on wikipoints). I've created the Translation Restoration project, as well as overhauled how pages are marked up and marked up a very large amount of pages (likely the majority of them). I've documented a lot of mods, the newer ones including Immersive Engineering and Avaritia. I've done a lot of maintenance work too, G fixes, category restructures, cleaning up of articles, etc. I've welcomed and been generally friendly (in my somewhat humble opinion) to new users. I created the IP award.

I would like to have full administration/bureaucrat rights. If you don't know what this means or includes, look at Special:ListGroupRights. The bureaucrat group has the largest amount of responsibilities, excluding Curse. The mort important rights is that it allows me to modify groups, to block users, to change protections, to edit the interwiki, to edit all pages, to edit stuff in the MediaWiki namespace, to nuke and to modify many internal settings/filters. If given, I will not abuse these powers, as I believe I have not abused my current rights.

Retep told me all staffs' vote counts, not just administrators. This is pretty reasonable; a two-person vote would be a bit lame. Since my vote for translation administrator was over a period of about 2 weeks, this vote will close on February 28th.

Update: After this application was created, SatanicSanta has given me banhammer rights. This makes a point or two invalid below. It is a bit disappointing to have to create a very wordy adminship application with much debate just to gain this right, even though I have requested it from the two administrators several times in the past, with them seemingly considering me eligible but not doing anything.

Update 2/Decision: Although some of the staff which haven't voted yet could vote support and I could become administrator/bureaucrat, I feel I couldn't accept it without a larger consensus (plus I don't imagine that would happen anyway). It is probable that I will re-apply for administrator (less probable for bureaucrat) at a future time, but I do feel like everyone got something out of this vote anyway; I've received the long merited banhammer (which is something I would argue that all staff should have, not just the crazy ones like me [though this can be discussed at a later debate]), and the current administrators have pledged to react faster to requests given to them. I'd like to thank everyone who voted, even the ones that voted against me (I'm still unfriending all of you on Facebook though).

Support

 * It took me more then an hour to right write this. -Xbony2 (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Mhhhh .... it seems to be a great responsibility (where I know about it less than the admins). But he does already many tasks about the entire wiki and I think he will do that all right, and will support/relieve SatanicSanta and Retep998. But as always with higher responsibilities, he must think 1 times more about his actions. And he has a "Gamepedia Mug" .... that's the right equipment for a bureaucrat, then he only needs coffee.
 * To be honest, I don't like coffee and have never used the Gamepedia mug for that. I've used it for soda and orange juice though. -Xbony2 (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Against

 * With banhammer rights (which I totally agree with you having BTW), I don't see the point in you having admin rights. With what you say you need, banning you've now got, update to rights it's clear Retep and Santa have got that covered with how infrequently it happens, and protected pages are protected for a reason. If they've been protected but shouldn't be, then they can just be lowered to Staff edit-only rather than Admin edit-only, or the protection removed completely. With pages like the main page or core templates that are admin edit-only, it's better than the edits to them are compacted down and offloaded to duplicate versions so that the wiki itself isn't effected until the changes are proved to be fine. There is, after all, no point in you having rights like edit filters and the interwiki table if you're never going to use them.  Chocohead Nag • Edits • Staff 22:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * --  Satanic Santa F T B Wiki Admin 22:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I somewhat do too. However, I think that voting against me means that you and Retep will need to step up and cleanup some of the mess caused by you two's ignorant (as in ignoring the mess the wiki is) behavior. This includes cleaning groups, updating the Sidebar, and overhauling some of the MediaWiki namespace's messages to make it easier for contributors and new users to pointer to the wikis guides/guidelines/MOS, some of which are nonexistent or outdated. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --  Satanic Santa F T B Wiki Admin 23:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The main reason I ran for administrator was dissatisfaction with current administrational [lack of] actions. Ex. when requested to fix an issue on the Common.js which was easily fixable, asking Retep many multiple times just wasn't enough. It took over a week for it to be resolved, by you, who was at the time "in and out" of wiki editing and hard to reach. One week is seriously a bullshit response period. Things have generally improved since then, but I would have much hesitation before calling it perfect. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I don't feel good about giving power to someone who is asking for power. You are a competent editor but that doesn't necessarily translate to someone good at administrative things. I also do feel a minor pang of guilt for not having good response times to your requests for certain things to be done, so I'll try to improve on that which simply means not procrastinating and just doing things when asked. 🐇 R e t e p 9 9 8 🐇🐰 Bunny Overlord 🐰 12:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't ask, you don't receive, and little is done. I think my work as translation administrator/editor shows I would not be a terrible administrator. -Xbony2 (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (I as well will work on doing shit when asked and not procrastinating as much anymore, so you won't be alone in this anti-procrastination journey) --  Satanic Santa F T B Wiki Admin 05:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutral/Abstain

 * No comment. Cblair91 (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I feel rights should be given on a "will use the permissions given" status. As bony doesn't do, and has a lack of showing, that the permissions given from sysop/crat will be used in an advantaged manner, I vote against.Cblair91 (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To prevent confusion, Cblair's vote is considered neutral/abstrain. See the CurseVoice conversation below.

(Addressing this comment in a minute) -Xbony2 (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Cblair's point is that I do not need these rights. I disagree. I've had to request a large number of administrative/bureaucrative actions from Retep/Santa (usually the later), including edits to protected pages (especially Project:FTB Wiki Staff which took many requests to update, until thank god Santa removed the protection over that page), updates to user rights, and lastly (and most importantly) blocks. -Xbony2 (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocking can be done without administrative rights through the banhammer usergroup. --  Satanic Santa F T B Wiki Admin 20:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Supposable. I have requested this many times, and the general response has always been... "Should bony have banhammer? I dunno, do you know? I dunno". -Xbony2 (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * — I don’t have anything serious against appointing Xbony2 as an administrator, but why go for being a bureaucrat?! Xbony2, you are asking for that too soon. We already have two here, plus we have Curse staff. And you weren’t a fitting administrator yet to be applicable for a bureaucrat. —  Agent NickTheRed37  ( Kirk to   Enterprise ) — Russian Translator and Minepedian 15:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * : I mentioned this already, but my current reformed group proposal has the group merged; unlike the MCW and wikipedia/wiktionary, this wiki isn't really big enough for there to really need to have a difference. Throughout the wiki history, there's only been one admin (AgentTadpole aka Nerixel) who didn't become a bureaucrat. My group proposal is just a proposal and isn't even finished yet (at the moment), but there hasn't been much stated disagreement with the idea. -Xbony2 (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don’t like having default rights merged. Some extensions might be confused by that, plus I just don’t like that (I don’t know why).
 * And, as a point of comparison, I would say that my own home wiki, the Russian Minecraft Wiki, is also “not big enough” so it could have the two groups merged, but what we have is apparently okay. We don’t need modifications to user rights. (We had a special “moderator” user group ages ago, and I even was a member of this group, but it was scrapped.) Alongside the only active bureaucrat user, we have a somewhat active regular admin, plus a nearly-inactive admin sometimes appears on the wiki.
 * And, Xbony2, just a personal thing: you’re too active. Don’t wear yourself down. —  Agent NickTheRed37  ( Kirk to   Enterprise ) — Russian Translator and Minepedian 16:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to merging admin and bureaucrat. While I am still somewhat neutral in your application to be administrator, I am opposed to you being a bureaucrat. There is simply no need for more bureaucrats as their power is needed very rarely to promote/demote staff which is never a thing that needs to be rushed. It is useful to have people that can be trusted to do technical things which is what sysop/admin should be, people who can muck about with the javascript and css and core templates without messing up the wiki. Bureaucrat is for a smaller group of people that only are needed when there is a staff promotion/demotion which is rare. Meanwhile the power to block is granted via banhammer which doesn't need admin. Having that separation is good. 🐇 R e t e p 9 9 8 🐇🐰 Bunny Overlord 🐰 21:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Debate over group reform is something that should go on the Staff's Noticeboard at a later date. If you wish, you can vote " Xbony2 for administrator but Xbony2 for bureaucrat" or " Xbony2 for administrator but  Xbony2 for bureaucrat".
 * : don't worry too much about me. Wiki editing is more or less my passion, but it's not my only hobby; I'm healthy and happy, so I think I'm doing okay. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)