. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
you have here. The definition of the word
will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Well, my reckoning is that this could be an elction-esque thing where one "wins". pedia has, what, 9 'crats, and im guessing is around 9 times (at least) bigger? But 2 bureaucrats will b fine anyway. plus, we got Angela to promote last time, and that was fine. Anyway, Ec is doin a fine job. But havin more 'crats wouldnt be bad, would it!? Hmmm, this entry is lacking a point to it, sorry. I'll think of its point later :p --Wonderfool 13:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
While it is obviously known to all of y'all, I am having trouble finding the definition of a bureaucrat's job here in wikiland. Could someone point me in the right direction or summarize it a bit? It's tough to vote when one is ignorant of the position ;) - TheDaveRoss
- Ignorance is never something to be ashamed of when one is willing to learn. A bureaucrat is a person who change a person's user level. For instance a bureaucrat can make people into administrators (or remove administrator status for that matter). Kevin Rector 14:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Have you tried the obvious => bureaucrat ??? SemperBlotto 14:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Actually, I don't think a bureaucrat can remove admin rights, right? (I assume that en: has no special software in this respect, not shared by other projects) \Mike 14:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
I should begin with an apology for being away for a month. It started with having to deal with the pressures of work, and ended up with a Wiki holiday. Then when I did start to come back, I ended up wasting an awful lot of time with the mailing lists.:-) I expect to maintain a normal level of activity for the next couple of months. I do plan to attend Wikimania in August, and to wander around Europe a little after that.
As far a the duties of a bureaucrat are concerned, in addition to the usual sysop functions they are limited to appointing sysops and bureaucrats, and nothing else. A bureaucrat does not have the power to de-sysop anybody. Rarely are any of the bureaucrat's duties urgent.
Given the light duties of a bureaucrat, I don't think that we need four of them. A second bureaucrat, however, would make sense. A backup for when I am away for an extended period of time, as I plan to be in August would be worthwhile. Although I do have a preference among the three candidates it would not be right to identify that preference now. I will only exercise that preference if no clear consensus develops between now and the end of July. Mean while, I need to work at clearing up the backlog of work that is there for me.Eclecticology 03:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
- If the responsibilites are so light,and the 3 candidates well supported by involved users, what is the harm in having three more bureaucrats. Just means any matter can probably be dealt with more quickly. Or are you, Ec, saying you are more qualified than the others, and that having more could be therefore a risk ? Personally I'm always suspicious of "clubs" that are exclusive for little real reason.--Richardb 06:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
One possible answer to "edit wars" is to request the administrator involved to excuse themselves from all edits involving the other person. If that administrator happens to be a Bureaucrat, that reduces the number to one - and I think we need a back-up in case the Bureaucrat's Real Life city happens to be a New Orleans and there's an unexpected MIA. Polyglot is still around here in spite of his business dealings. Since he'd only be a "back-up", I recommend he be elected at this time. --Stranger 16:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
- The role of the bureaucrats has nothing to do with this. Their only specified function is to create new administrators, with no power to de-admin. There is now a back-up to cover situations where I might be MIA; in the unlikely event that we might both be unavailable for an extended period of time, one can always have recourse to the stewards.
- Although your comments might be relevant to administrators generally, the generally accepted convention is that an administrator cannot use his administrative powers to block a person with whom he is having an edit war. With that in mind sysops can engage in edit wars as much as anyone else. Eclecticology 23:34:13, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
Hi sorry to bother you but there is a backlog of several weeks at Wiktionary:Changing username. This is a more frequent request than perhaps it was in the past because of SUL usurptions. I have raised the issue at meta ( meta:Steward_requests/SUL_requests ) but it was suggested they would step in and help if you requested help in clearing the backlog but not otherwise. Thanks --Golden Wattle 06:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
- What backlog would that be? I don't see any unprocessed requests, except for an old one from an anon. All the processed requests seem to have been handled within 24 hours. --EncycloPetey 22:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
According to this page, Wiktionary bureaucrats cannot remove administrator status from accounts. However, according to Special:ListGroupRights, bureacrats may: "Remove groups: Administrators, Bureaucrats and Bots". Can whichever page is incorrect be corrected? --Yair rand 20:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
- I wouldn't know how to check this without trying a practical test. If there's an admin willing to play guinea pig for a practical test on the matter, I can make a determination. --EncycloPetey 21:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
- If you can't chase down a Wonderfool, feel free to experiment with my acount. Conrad.Irwin 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
- That still wouldn't determine whether bureaucrat status can be removed by other bureaucrats. --Yair rand 22:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
- But that wasn't your question, as I understood it. Your question begins with a statement that "bureaucrats cannot remove administrator status". I assumed that was your question. --EncycloPetey 22:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
- While on other wikis, bureaucrats can remove other administrators' rights, it isn't enabled by default. If you want the ability for bureaucrats on the English Wiktionary to be able to remove other editors' rights, you'll have to post a bug on bugzilla. I really don't think that bureaucrats should be able to remove other bureaucrat's rights as that can easily become a power play by one bureaucrat (not saying that it would happen, but it could). Therefore, I think we should only allow them to remove the admin bit. Cheers, Razorflame 22:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Yeah, the other stuff wasn't part of my original question. Would be good to know if 'crats can remove bureaucrat status anyways, though. But that's really besides the point. --Yair rand 22:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Test proves Special:ListGroupRights to be correct about being able to remove admin rights, which means that it's probably also correct about being able to remove b'crat status. --Yair rand 22:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
- After a practical test on guninea pig volunteer Conrad, I can confirm that Bureaucrats can desysop administrators. I have edited the introductory text of this page to remove that misinformation, but have assumed that bureaucrats can't remove the rights of other bureaucrats, and that that information was what the page's author intended to communicate. However, this is unverified and verifying that power is a sticky issue I'd rather avoid. --EncycloPetey 22:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
- In that case, the sentence about not being able to remove crat status should probably be removed, as there isn't a simple way of finding out whether it's correct or not. --Yair rand 22:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've tried requesting the deletion of an account in a number of places without success. How is one supposed to do it in Wiktionary? The account in question is chris55 and all that someone has done is to delete the user page. I no longer have access to the email address connected with this id and my 'global account' has been pending for several years waiting for this account to be joined up. User:31.185.148.24 09:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
- What are you talking about? User:Chris55 was deleted on July 9, 2012. —Stephen (Talk) 22:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, the page was deleted but the account was not. I'm still blocked when trying to create it.
- User Chris55 has been renamed Chris55old. I assume that is what you wanted us to do (though you never actually said so). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Miraculous - I'm logged in without even having to register. Thanks. Not being a bureaucrat myself on any wiki I don't know the ins and outs of what has to be done, but you've obviously done it! Chris55 (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
is no longer bureaucrat 90.166.153.240 13:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply