Memory Alpha talk:Administrators
From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.
Contents |
[edit] Bureaucrat status
Just to clarify, I was made a temporary bureaucrat to deal with the admin nominations that already piled up. Angela didn't have the time to deal with it herself immediately, and will probably remove that status later. However, it seems as if another bureaucrat might be a good idea. Are there any suggestions regarding a nomination procedure for bureaucrats? -- Cid Highwind 16:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I just checked, seems as if I'm still a bureaucrat. I don't need to keep that position, but I think we need at least one active bureaucrat on MA/en. Since there hasn't been any formal nomination/voting procedure, I just want to bring this up for discussion. Please voice any possible objections with me having this status here. -- Cid Highwind 15:15, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I certainly support you remaining a bureaucrat; we could definitely use an extra one. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 21:38, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Possibly another, since the first two are AWOL. --Alan del Beccio 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of admins
- Jan H. Kobarg (en, de:, de: nl:) => twice "de" to change
- eo and pl admins are lacking
[edit] Spanish admins
The admin there is ElAuriano - one of our admins should list that here. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Done. --From Andoria with Love 23:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I am admin of MA/es too. --Sr Vulcano 11:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rollback feature
There's a new feature available, allowing bureaucrats to give out a "rollback right" to non-admin users. This right basically consists of an additional link on diff pages, allowing to easily rollback an edit.
Any user already can do a "manual" rollback by editing an older version of the page, so this isn't really an additional right like the admin rights of blocking and deleting. I'm not sure we need a complicated vote&discuss policy for giving out those rights. Would anyone mind me giving these rights to a handful of trustable "residents"? (Note:I already gave this right to User:Bp). -- Cid Highwind 15:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with that at all. (Except for that Bp guy... I would give him the time of day, much less any extra rights! :P) -- Renegade54 16:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New or questionable users
Would anybody be against the addition of a rule stating that votes of newly registered users or users with a questionable history will not be counted? This is obviously in relation to our recent nomination in which StoryMaster, who has done nothing but disrupt the community, opposed Enzo's nomination, obviously because his own nomination failed miserably. Since new users likely won't be familiar with a nominee's edits, anyway, I don't think their votes should count. --From Andoria with Love 03:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. I would. Who decides which people's votes don't count? Anyone's vote should count. As long as they have a justified explanation for such. If they state that they have a problem with edits, then examples must be provided, with an explanation for why such edits are a problem, etc. That would be a better addition to the policy. -- Sulfur 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, by "new" I mean someone who's been here less than a week (I think that's when the server stops recognizing users as new), and by "questionable history", I mean those who have vandalized, disrupted, harassed, and so forth, and have done basically nothing else since they've been here.
- Re:sulfur. That's what the policy currently says; a reasonable explanation needs to be provided, particularly for objections. I'm just suggesting this new policy to further ensure that we avoid the "riff-raff", as it were. ;) --From Andoria with Love 03:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request un-speedy delete of images
I spent the good part of today updating and expanded United States military insignia and in the last five minutes, without discussion or explanation, three insignia images were speedy deleted and then blanked from the article. These images were:
Image:US o-8 rank pin.png
Image:US o-7 rank pin.png
Image:US o-1 rank pin.png
I think this was kind of rude since I started a talk page disucssion on the very subject. My whole point is that even though the images were not seen, they are implied by other insignia, much like several of the images seen in Starfleet ranks (higher Admiral ranks which never appear on screen). In any event, there was one comment posted by User:Captainmike and then the images started getting deleted. CM has since claimed the images are his property and he has the right to speedy delete without discussion which I don't believe is the case [1]. My understanding is that once you post to this site it becomes community property. And, for that matter, a User cannot lay copyright claim to a generic military insignia picture. This should have been discussed, especally since I took the time to start the discussion. I ask that these images be undeleted until this can be sorted out. (P.S.- Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this) -FleetCaptain 20:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- ATTENTION: Talk:United States military insignia. -- Cid Highwind 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unresolved Merge Request
I was just wondering if an admin could merge Warrant Officer into Starfleet ranks. Three votes for and none against. Shouldnt be any problem with merging it in. I could also do it myself if such a thing is permitted. -FC 04:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merges get dealt with on a semi-regular basis. Generally, pestering does nothing, In this case, I did it because I'm cranky. -- Sulfur 04:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I didnt mean to pester, only inquire and advise. The last time I tried to do something like this myself, I was told not to but rather contact an administrator. Thanks for doing it in any event! -FC