Community Central

Admin Forum:Bureacrats and Admins

18,814pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Add New Page Talk0

This Forum has been archived

Forums: Admin Central Index Technical Help Bureacrats and Admins
Central's forums are a place for the community to help other members.
To contact staff directly or to report bugs, please use Special:Contact.
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1326 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Are Bureacrats just admins with more power? Awesume 23:20, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

yes A.r.s.h.who you gana call "ghost busters'' 23:22, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Thx Awesume 23:44, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucrats have the ability to make normal users ranked. They can turn a normal wikia user into an admin, or a rollback. However, keep in mind that once a bureaucrat, always bureaucrat, unless somebody requests a Wikia Staff member to take away his/her priviledge. This should only be done when they abuse their powers.

Bureaucrats are also just editors. They have all the same powers as normal editors, and then some. Their powers shouldn't be used for evil, and shouldn't be used that often at all. Bureaucrats are often looked up to as leaders, or people who can be trusted throughout the wiki, and often times Wikia itself. Bureaucrats, also called 'crats, are often considered the organisers of a wiki. They see to when something needs to be done, that are beyond even the powers of an admin.

{{SUBST:User:Zahuna/signature}} 00:17, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

And they can lock down the Wiki entirely by protecting Special:AllPages. Don't forget that. Cat 00:24, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
Bureaucrats are not exactly admins- just users who the ability to give user rights such as admin and rollback. Most of the time, not always, 'crats are admins. Bureaucrats are users who are trusted by the wiki community. A 'crats' rights cannot be revoked unless done so by Wikia Staff. 'Crats are also editors, corrupt 'crats should be reported to Special:Contact. --Plasma (Talk) @Community Central 00:58, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucrats really aren't much different than regular editors. They're to be viewed as a regular editor. Yes, they do have the ability to block other users, but that's only when needed. In addition to blocking, they can also add administrator rights to another user. But other than that, they really are not different from other users because they are just other users. – zzi 00:59, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

To see the technical differences, you can visit Special:ListGroupRightsTK999 19:07, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
Bureaucrats aren't "supposed" to be different from other users. Sadly, this concept has been thrown out the window on the wiki I contribute to. And that's putting it mildly.
Mathmagician ( talk blog ) 01:09, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
As 'a crat on two wikis, I try to maintain a semblence of stability. Certain users have to be trusted to take care of vandals and trolls. They have to be different; that's the whole point of user rights. Everyone's input is equal, but the admins and 'crats have to organise and lead. If you go to a more well-maintainted wiki such as Red Dead Wiki or Mass Effect Wiki , you will notice that without their input, it would all fall apart. I make a majority of edits on Brutal Legend Wiki, and a good decent chunk from Dante's Inferno Wiki, but I also rely on the other editors; it's always a community project. We can simply be trusted with the tools that help benefit everyone. It is something that has to be earned. When it comes down to promoting a user, I focus on quality and consistency over quantity. Sure their is an abuse of power sometimes, but if there were no admins and bureacrats, everyone would abuse the wiki in anyway they can.
--The Milkman | I always deliver. 05:46, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
Really? If there weren't admins and bureaucrats then everyone would abuse the wiki? There are literally hundreds of small Wikimedia Foundation projects without any admins - in fact, to have admins there needs to be a small community of editors present at the wiki. I can pretty well say that people don't abuse their right to edit just because of a lack of admins.
Ultimately, sysop/crat are just a group of tools for trusted users. They shouldn't indicate a position of "leadership" - leadership is what you get when a member of any community is active in participating in discussions, implementing consensus and helping others. You don't need a sysop flag for that. ajr 19:18, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
It really isn't a valid comparison to use obscure WikiMedia foundation projects as an example against popular topic based wikis that also allow anonymous editing with almost no easy tracking. People won't abuse their right to edit because of lack of admins, but they may feel emboldened if their is a lack of active admins. There is a great deal of difference between an active admin and an inactive admin. An inactive admin is as ineffectual as having no admin. An active admin can enforce policies, do wiki maintenance, give advice, help inexperienced users and an array of other important tasks. A wiki with at least one good active admin is better than a wiki with many inactive admins or no admins at all. Same goes for bureaucrats. An active bureaucrat can help grow a wiki by recruiting or appointing quality admins or other bureucrats.
Trying to encourage an egalitarian philosophy by diminishing the importance of good admins and bureaucrats over regular users may make you feel good, but it really doesn't make wikis any better. Just as a bad admin/bureaucrat can do much more damage than a bad regular user, they should be viewed for what they are, not some idealized wish of what you want them to be. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3 Feb 2012 3:44 PM Pacific
There are many obscure WMF wikis (all of which allow anonymous editing btw) with no active admins, and none of which are rampant with vandalism. There are also many Wikia wikis that don't have active admins, in which there are active users on them that don't spend all of their time vandalizing. ajr 22:57, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
Obscure is the key word there. Also, the many wikis with no active admins and less vandalism also tend to be obscure. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4 Feb 2012 11:23 AM Pacific

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki