Project:Requests for permissions/Leaderboard (3)
User:Leaderboard
edit- Requested user-rights: Bureaucrat.
- Leaderboard (talk • contribs • logs • rights • global account)
I was pretty hesitant, but going bold as I'd like to handle rights permissions (and declining requests with no meaningful chance of success). We on paper have many bureaucrats, but very few tend to even look at the areas where a bureaucrat would be helpful (which I tend to be fairly responsive at). I'm not a "developer" by the definition of this page, but I am an operator of a bot running multiple tasks which I think should count for something.
Note for transparency that I have a failed rights request for this years back (Project:Requests/User rights/Leaderboard (2)). Leaderboard (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think not now. It'd also be helpful to link to the prior request which is not done here. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ammarpad: That's done, though if "not now", when? Not sure if there's something I'm missing. Leaderboard (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Unspecified time. It's not necessary nor required to be a bureaucrat. You can do a lot of things to improve this wiki without being a bureaucrat. To add more, I think you already have to much work to do on multiple wikis and there's no pressing need for bureaucrats here.
Coupled with the past history of yours (which includes using sockpuppet accounts) as evidenced in the the previous requestI cannot support the request. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)- @Ammarpad: having looked at the previous request you link to, I don't see any mention of using sockpuppet accounts — as this is a fairly significant accusation which would likely sway the outcome of this request, could you please expand on what you're referring to? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 22:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ammarpad I don't know what "sockpuppet" account you're referring to, but the only alternate account I have is User:Leaderbot. Leaderboard (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Leaderboard and TheresNoTime: I have struck that part. I see Leaderboard was never renamed, so I believe I mistook them for someone else. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Unspecified time. It's not necessary nor required to be a bureaucrat. You can do a lot of things to improve this wiki without being a bureaucrat. To add more, I think you already have to much work to do on multiple wikis and there's no pressing need for bureaucrats here.
Support I guess. We seem to have a dearth of active crats (the request above languished for a month, and the request before that did too), so if Leaderboard or anyone else with a semblance of trust wants to step up to the plate then more power to them. * Pppery * it has begun 04:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)- No objection. MW has ~21 bureaucrats, however, some of them relatively do not watch or respond to requests on this page. Considering that the page may be understaffed at some point, it may be useful to appoint a new 'crat to close request that might be stalled for up to a month. So basically I would Support. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your graph on XTools is scattered as it comes and goes active or not every few months. I am a little concerned about his ability to remain a stable helpful bureaucrat. --Tmv (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Tmv This is true, but (i) I still regularly look at this wiki, and more importantly (ii) even otherwise, I'm pretty responsive to a ping (as my userpage notes). Leaderboard (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Clump (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Not a fan of Leaderboard's maturity or knowledge of local rights (previous RfB was off-putting for me). Cluelessly stating that it should stay is not it. There's a precedent for removing handled requests from the RfP page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Jasper Deng The previous RfB was five years ago, and it is irritating to see people hold on that. "There's a precedent for removing handled requests from the RfP page" - yes, but my experience is that they are left for more than a couple of hours as well, because I think it's reasonable for people to at least know that someone has gotten the right. Regardless: if I am wrong (and I am not always right), you could have easily reversed it, and I wouldn't care (at least if I was in your shoes, I would probably let them know on their talk page or on the revert summary). Calling it "cluelessly" is a bit too strong as a result even if I'm not correct in this example. Leaderboard (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps "Clueless" was a bit far, but it's clear from this as well as your badgering of opposes that you are not ready for this position.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- I do not agree with you in a rather strong way, but I'll leave it that. Leaderboard (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps "Clueless" was a bit far, but it's clear from this as well as your badgering of opposes that you are not ready for this position.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Jasper Deng The previous RfB was five years ago, and it is irritating to see people hold on that. "There's a precedent for removing handled requests from the RfP page" - yes, but my experience is that they are left for more than a couple of hours as well, because I think it's reasonable for people to at least know that someone has gotten the right. Regardless: if I am wrong (and I am not always right), you could have easily reversed it, and I wouldn't care (at least if I was in your shoes, I would probably let them know on their talk page or on the revert summary). Calling it "cluelessly" is a bit too strong as a result even if I'm not correct in this example. Leaderboard (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced we have a need for new 'crats - the workload is very light and having to ping someone on IRC or similar when action is needed is fine IMO. Taavi (talk!) 17:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's fair and I agree with you, except that for my bot request, I did ping a bureaucrat but got no response (which is one reason I decided to apply for this role), and in the past, pinging crats here didn't always work. You're not a 'crat either so I'm not actually sure who should be pinged? I have to admit I was tempted to withdraw after seeing TheresNoTime get 'crat though, as they're active. Leaderboard (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- That logic seems very wrong to me. Requiring things to be done through unexplained backchannels is cabalish behavior, not how a WMF wiki should work. If people aren't actively checking Project:Requests for permissions then that is itself a problem. * Pppery * it has begun 04:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ehhhh, IRC is where developers hang out and this page says "One thing to keep in mind is that unlike most Wikimedia sites, this site is controlled by the MediaWiki developers" and then "there aren't really any formal policies on what's required: you just have to convince a bureaucrat". So I don't think "unexplained backchannels" is a fair characterization.
- That said yes, people should be checking the wiki page regularly and I'll admit that I haven't been doing a great job at that myself. Legoktm (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
After 1.5 months or so, there are three supports and four opposes. I think it's safe to say this request should be closed as not done.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Officially marking this as
Not done. It's been amply long enough and no uninvolved bureaucrat would agree to grant this request.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
