Incubator talk:Administrators/Archive1

Request for an administrator Toolbox

Since starting work on Wikipedia, I gradually learned a lot of tricks in making a page. Being an administrator, however, one needs more. One not only wants to have a look over the total number of articles he is responsible for, but he also needs to know when the latest changes in some article have been carried out. I am sure, there will be some codes to retrieve that result, but the problem is to learn and to remember them. For that reason it would be useful to have a Toolbox-page linking to all such codes and methods. One might also add a vocabulary of technical terms: I don't have the slightest idea about what a bot-flag might be! --Pyt 13:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "when the latest changes in some article have been carried out". What exactly do you want to know? As for technical terms, you can either look them up at Meta or just ask somebody here. A bot-flag is a status which is given to a computer program which makes edits on the wiki using its own username. The bot flag stops its edits from being shown in Recent changes, to avoid cluttering it up (often bots make thousands of simple edits very quickly, and these stop the RC view from being useful). Dbmag9 14:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Perhaps it is a list of these 'Recent changes' I want to see, but where can I find it? I don't see how I can keep control over what occurs in a larger number of articles without having such a list. --Pyt 17:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can use your watchlist to keep track of changes to articles: perhaps that is what you need? To watch a page (add it to your watchlist) click the tab saying 'watch' above a page (next to the tabs saying 'talk', 'move' etc.). When a page is watched, the most recent change is listed on your watchlist, which you can look at by clicking 'my watchlist' next to the links to log off at the top right of the page. Dbmag9 17:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to do that. I also found your link bringing me to the list of Special pages, which looks a bit like the toolbox I had in mind. --Pyt 17:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I:RFBF

I noticed that there was a section for requests for bot flags. This section has no text in it. Could/should I write in it saying that requests will be accepted by b'crats assuming that the bot is useful and unharmful, or would the community have input into it also? Thanks! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • Wikipedia)} 14:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community? Wich community? :-) I think there is no need for voting for a bot, unless there are oppose votes. Maybe the bot user needs only a good reason. SPQRobin 23:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that too, maybe we could just leave it up to the b'crat. Anyone else have an opinion? Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • Wikipedia)} 23:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone has any objections, I will leave the two sentences regarding this at I:RFBF. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • Wikipedia)} 02:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing policy

The policy for new admins is currently:

Nominations usually remain for seven days, for votes and comments. Admin status will be granted by a majority of at least 75% and a minimum of 4 support votes. In this case, the request should be referred to a bureaucrat such that it can be made to happen.

This is impossible, because the community is very very small. (See also I:AN#Admin policy). I would suggest something like this:

When there are no votes or comments anymore in the next five days after the last vote or comment, a bureaucrat will make a decision based on the votes and comments.

This is just an idea. Please give your thought! SPQRobin 11:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed per your and my experiences, this is needed! :-D Cbrown1023 talk 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will change the policy text - if someone does not agree, I will revert it and we can discuss it. (= because we are just with 2 who agree with this) SPQRobin 20:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC) (changed my text from "...a decision for giving the admin status or not." to "...a decision based on the votes and comments.")[reply]

Test Administrators

I think it's more important that the community of the test is behind the administrator than other people. This doesn't mean that people outside of the test aren't able to vote. Can there be a change in the policy that enlarges the votes of the community of the test of the testadministrator than the votes of the people outside of the test of the test administrator? -Markvondeegel 06:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, there isn't always a large number of people working on a single test. You could add a little note to the policy asking people from the same test to say that in their support or oppose statement. That way, the bureaucrat would know how to best "weigh" the votes. Cbrown1023 talk 17:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it later today or tomorrow -Markvondeegel 17:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing policy because of bugzilla:10727 and Betawiki

Please see my proposal at User:SPQRobin/Policy. Read these two pages and give your comments at User talk:SPQRobin/Policy. SPQRobin 13:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

incubator_rtl:

Dear friends; Have you ever considered to provide a real « RTL Wikimedia Incubator » ? Best regards
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 22:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could stand the LTR layout (menu on left, content on right) you still can have pretty enough functional RTL incubator easy by wrapping the content in properly styled wrap. If you can't stand the layout, there's still some chance to customize this site to look entire RTL via gadgets.

If you know most of the bugs listed at the Dependency tree for Bug 745 you would not answer as you did.

Please, clean up your signature with proper &lrm; and &rlm; marking where necessary, the rendering is currently messed up. Thank you.
— Danny B. 22:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is

‎→ bugzilla:012225 "influencing the BiDi algorithm to clearly distinguish between the signature and the date and time"

{{anchor|anchor=bugzilla_012225}}[[bugzilla:012225]]<br />
~~~~<br />
{{style/ril|ril=~~~}} {{style/ril|ril=~~~~~}}

generates:‎

bugzilla:012225
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
‎‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬‎ ‎23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)‎[reply]

Regards

‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As we discussed on IRC, I don't think this is necessary especially with the recent gadget addition by Robin. Cbrown1023 talk 19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks quite good! Thanks! Best regards
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 20:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganising

My intention was to review the policy and change what is needed. To make that more easy, I would like to split up Incubator:Administrators to Incubator:Administrators and Incubator:Test-sysops. Anyone against? SPQRobin 18:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest Incubator:Test-administrators instead to stay on same kind of name. Anyway I support the split.
— Danny B. 20:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. I'll wait for some more support before splitting up. SPQRobin 20:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I would support such a move, but is it really necessary? Isn't it better to keep them all "access requests" on the same page? Cbrown1023 talk 02:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary. You will get one almost inactive page and one a little bit active page. -Markvondeegel 09:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I would like to replace the current I:A page with User:SPQRobin/Policy (more lay-out changes than policy changes :p). Look at User_talk:SPQRobin/Policy#New_discussion (please go to there, instead of this page). SPQRobin 17:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supplement to the policy

I propose this supplement to the policy:

"Bureaucrats may grant test-sysop rights to trusted users who could need the ability to delete pages at the moment (but are not active enough here to become admin or when five days would be to long idle time or when they don't want to stay sysop here) if such a user is a sysop on another Wikimedia project. The duration should be not more than one week (seven days); but the rights can be revoked at any time."

Please give your opinions. --MF-W {a, b} 17:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imade this proposal because it would have been helpful for e.g. User:Crochet.davids bot when he cleaned up the categories. --MF-W {a, b} 07:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC) e[reply]

Incubator to Wikipedia?

Hi, everyone, I don't know whether it's inappropriated to post this subject here or not, but I want to know whether the adminship in this wiki (incubator) must be transferred to the real wikipedia after creation of the domain for this test wikipedia. --Mizoram Tan! 08:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I once asked this, but the Meta stewards didn't allow this. They said all admins should be either elected by the community (on the new wiki) or a temporary admin. SPQRobin 14:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki is closed

Bonjour, Depuis ce matin j' ai pas contribuer a Wp/shi et portant je l' ai fais toujours je reçois ce message: This wiki is closed; see m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Wikimedia Incubator. You can view and copy the source of this page: je n’arrive même pas a savoir pourquoi ?? Parce que ce lien est corrompu. Peut on m’ aider.. --Dalinanir 15:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, today no normal pages can be edited!! --Pyt 20:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was vandalism, this is now solved, see Incubator:AN#User:Newyorkmets2000. --MF-W {a, b} 15:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Quelqu 'un a du jouer avec les anglets concernant les caractéres des langues: Sepedi- Tarifit/ tachelhit...........

Sepedi --> Ɛ Č Ḍ Ğ Ḥ Γ Ṛ Ṣ Ṭ Ț Ẓ Ž ε č ḍ ğ ḥ ɣ ṛ ṣ ṭ ţ ẓ ž
Tarifit/ tachelhit --> Ā ā Ē ē Ī ī Ō ō Ū ū Ȳ ȳ Ŷ ŷ Ŵ ŵ Ð ð Þ þ Æ æ Ø ø Ÿ ÿ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ Ŕ ŕ Ś ś Ỹ ỹ Ź ź Ṣ ṣ Ǣ ǣ

.??

MakkiTa --> Ҥ ҥ Ӧ ӧ Ӱ ӱ Ӓ ӓ Ӹ ӹ

--Dalinanir 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it work now? Please also clear your cache as changes on MediaWiki:Onlyifediting.js might not yet be arrived in your cache. (qui peut le traduire en francais?) --MF-W {a, b} 18:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test administrator request

I requested earlier to be appointed as a test administrators for the Tarift Test Wikipedia (ISO 639-3: rif). What happened to my request?

--Aryaz 21:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can read here, "Users are given 5 days to place comments. After this period, requests will be reviewed by a bureaucrat and if there is no reasonable opposition, you will be made into a test-admin." As now 5 days are over, I have made you a test-admin. --MF-W {a, b} 17:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cho.w

Good evening, I used without even thinking about it the admin rights on the Choctaw Wikipedia, it was only to delete pages that I created by mistake myself, I hope this is not an issue. Amqui (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is not a problem at all, especially as it only concerned the deletion of redirects you created yourself or the use of the suppressredirect right. Thanks for telling us & watch out what you delete ;-) --MF-W {a, b} 00:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I knew it wasn't a problem, but thought I would mention it since the main page says to be prepare to defend yourself, and the best defense is the offense =P Amqui (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No responce for test admin request

@MF-Warburg: No responce over my request. — Sagardev1998 ^{Let's talk!} 01:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Username changing

Hello, is it possible to change my username? Thanks. --Amara-Amaziɣ (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please request it on this page. Best, Ilya Drakonov (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]