Feed The Beast Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard

Minecraft Forum links

This wiki has lots of references to topics on Minecraft Forum. In order to keep things accurate and safe, I suggest the following:

• Replace all HTTP links with HTTPS (essentially batch replace string http://www.minecraftforum.net/ with https://www.minecraftforum.net/ on all articles)
• Since Minecraft Forum will soon become read-only, how about appending the word "archived" to links that refer to it?

--Robotkoer (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding your second point, I figured it would be wise to tell everyone that it isn’t going into Read Only. Regarding your first point, this may or may not be needed as HTTP is usually converted to HTTPS in modern browsers. Tomodachi94 (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Xbony2 for Bureaucrat

Well folks, it is that time again. I declare here and now a vote on whether or not I (Xbony2) should be granted the role of "Bureaucrat." There are two bureaucrats currently: Retep998 and TheSatanicSanta. SatanicSanta used to be quite active, but he has been effectively inactive for a long time. He is not dead, and on occasion does stuff, but it seems he has other tasks that warrant his attention over the wiki. Which is perfectly fine. Retep998 is active on the Discord, but often unwilling to take action without some prodding. Over the past couple years I have usually been the one reminding him to give role statuses to users who have been voted to have them. Sometimes he is a bit unreliable, hence why I would to have the Bureaucrat role myself.

To be honest, I am not as active as I used to be myself. However, I do keep track of all Discord activity, and as you can see by looking above and through the archives, I have usually been the sole person to nominate new Editors over the past few years. Once my spring semester of college starts (gulp), it's going to be hard to keep track of everything, but regardless, having two somewhat involved Bureaucrats I think will be better than one. (edit: just to note, this kind of vote usually lasts for two weeks) -Xbony2 (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support Lykrast (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I fully support this idea ;) --Qunynawy (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support If he abuses it, then it can be revoked, right? Tomodachi94 (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC) (I forgot to sign in lol)

  Bureaucrat enables some actions that are a bit harder to revoke. Retep998 (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yes. Gamepedia staff can swoop in at any time. Although after more than 6 years of editing, I hope we can rule abuse as unlikely. Although ummm, perhaps you should log in? -Xbony2 (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  (okay he logged in) -Xbony2 (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support I'm not quite sure if I'm still qualified to vote here, but when I was active in the wiki xbony2 was helpfup with everything, heck I even think he has the most contributions of us all combined here.. --sokratis12GR (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  By edit count, definitely, although I don't think that metric should be fetishized. Santa for example has probably done a bit more in terms of writing/fixing software for the wiki that we rely on. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support They're handling the responsibility already, having the power just streamlines things. Canis Artorus (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support Xbony is the best staff member!! Ferßtéax 21:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Against. Did not proactively bribe me with cute original bunny pictures despite knowing my policy. 🐇Retep998🐇^{🐰Bunny Overlord🐰} 21:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Neutral. Did eventually share some bunny gifs. 🐇Retep998🐇^{🐰Bunny Overlord🐰} 18:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support I'm worried that if the vote doesn't pass I may be pinged next year to vote again --Super fluke (talk)
• Support. --Hubry (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Infrequently active is still active. SirMoogle (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support my first edit in 2020. ImmortalPharaoh7 (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Hueso would be proud. #Bony4Bureaucrat2020 -- SizableShrimp🦐 (talk · contribs) 00:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  I don't know what this means but thanks? -Xbony2 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support Intipablo (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support #OutvoteRetep998 - AstroFlux (talk) (contributions) 03:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Uh... I don't know if I should be relieved or scared. Tomodachi94 (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support I thought he was that ages ago! — 🍕 Yivan000 ^view_talk 🍕 03:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral, but with some leaning to Support. My inactivity here may cast doubt on credibility of my vote, but what I do have is a six-plus-year of editing Gamepedia wikis. I believe that the minimum amount of active bureaucrats on a wiki should equal two, as a means to rely less on global Fandom/Gamepedia staff and as a safeguard against possible intra-administration conflicts (something I’ve unfortunately been a witness of). — BabylonAS 16:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  By the way, with Xbony2 getting bureaucrat status, all admins would have bureaucrat status. Being accustomed to wikis without a sizeable intermediate user group in the form of “editors” (or “staff” before that), I find the lack of non-bureaucrat admins quite weird. Should we consider promoting some editors to admins? — BabylonAS 16:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  Perhaps. It would be nice to have some more competent people as admins. 🐇Retep998🐇^{🐰Bunny Overlord🐰} 18:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  Perhaps. SizableShrimp and SirMoogle are probably the most likely candidates, though Sizable is a bit too new, and dunno if either want to be put into that position. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

  Nope, thanks. I can just tag Xbony on discord with all my problems and they usually get resolved within 2-12 hours. :) Module work on large, important modules and/or templates can be annoying since all the important ones are admin-only, but my edits usually already have a 50/50 chance of working or breaking so I think it best to stay this way. Becoming an admin after slightly only half a year makes no sense to me, and I personally have no want for it. -- SizableShrimp🦐 (talk · contribs) 02:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support Now, normally I'm not one to suggest bureaucrat appointments on Gamepedia, but with custom user groups being involved, there can be a bit more of a case to be made for having someone as a backup person to be on call for such duties when the use of said groups is rather limited, as is the case here. My only question is, why has this not been suggested for this person much earlier? DSquirrelGM (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Results

This appears to have passed. -Xbony2 (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This appears to have been enacted. 🐇Retep998🐇^{🐰Bunny Overlord🐰} 21:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)