FANDOM


Shortcut:
HPW:RFP

This page is used to request various levels of user access. See archives 1, 2, and history for old requests.

Archives
File-manager.png

Chat Mods

These users are able to ban other users from chat.

Rollback

These users are able to quickly revert vandalism.

3owowoo

Heyo bois! I am requesting rollback rights! I will

  • Revert vandalism
  • Report vandals
  • More!

The only problem is, there are a few vandals on this wiki nowadays, so it will be hard!

12:19, July 18, 2020 (UTC)
Hello there - often times Rollback is granted to users by one of the Harry Potter Wiki:Bureaucrats after the user has an established track record of helping undo vandalism. It's unlikely they'll just grant it to anyone and hope it is used properly.
Also, we're currently engaged in a Forum:Policy Review that will likely affect the Request for permissions process so all RFPs are on pause currently. Sorry about that! You just happened to catch us while things are under construction so this request will have to wait for now, but that might give you some time to help Undo some vandalism and build that good track record mentioned. Thanks! --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:30, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

Content Moderator

These users are able to delete and protect pages.

MechQueste

Hi Harry Potter Wiki,

I am requesting the content moderator tools here on the wiki.

Just a bit of background for my request. I had originally requested and received the tools way before in April 2020. See my original request here.

Recently, it was brought to light that the entire process surrounding to my promotion was not compliant with the Voting Policy as it was closed early by a bureaucrat. In addition, my previous tenure had seen a few mistakes and such were fully outlined by an admin. I have taken taken time to reflect, apologize, correct, and learned from the mistakes. Thus, I have decided to resign. This was done so that the there would be enough time and enough discussion have occurred in honour of a community/democratic confidence or consensus can be established in good faith this time.

Today, I have to invite you to look at my historical contributions and judge me by the merits. Please stick to wiki related edits contributions and ignore everything else. A few words about the intended usage.

  • renaming images

I am aware that recently there has been a massive cleanup operation regarding red links. To avoid creating red links in Special:wantedpages and special:wantedfiles, I will be checking each file and red links to avoid creating them, and definitely keep redirects more often than not.

  • deletions of fanon

Unfortunately, the wiki has seen a few times where people insert fanon on here, and it has no place on the article main namespace. Thus, I will use to delete.


Anyways, That’s pretty much what I plan on using content moderator tools. I welcome discussion below. MechQueste 12:02, July 17, 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Given we as a community are actively engaged in a Forum:Policy Review, including a discussion on a Forum:User Rights Policy proposal and a review and likely update to the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy, I believe this, and other Requests for permissions, should be put on hold until these specific Policies are addressed and any changes are complete. There is no emergency need currently which would prompt and immediate need for users with additional rights and I believe it would be best that any new rights are granted under the new and fully agreed upon policy and process. Many thanks for the understanding --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:56, July 17, 2020 (UTC)

Ok fine with me. MechQueste 18:05, July 17, 2020 (UTC)
please consider this request withdrawn. MechQueste 14:16, August 15, 2020 (UTC)

Bot

MechQuesteBot

Hi, I'm requesting a bot flag for User:MechQuesteBot. I found myself doing some more repetitive actions recently and it has flooded recent changes. I will use the bot mostly to categorize images, although other work can be done if if needed. I have flooded recent changes before but rather avoid doing so. MechQueste 18:14, June 15, 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

  1. FOR. I support this request, seeing that this bot has 307k+ global edits across Fandom. In addition, MechQueste has shown that she is a trusted member of the Harry Potter Wiki, and I think that she can surely be trusted to run a bot here. Yechezkelb sigOwl(owl post) 25px-Badge-ContentModerator.svg 18:53, June 15, 2020 (UTC)
  2. For. MechQueste is clearly a trusted and competent content moderator, I see no reason why his bot should be denied access. Sirius (talk) 19:47, June 15, 2020 (UTC)
  3. I agree with the comments above, giving MechQueste her own bot would be a very good idea. She is very reliable and hard-working as mentioned above, and she is also frequently active and responds to all requests.--RedWizard98 (talk) 01:04, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

Could I get more information on the framework for this bot? What is it based on and programmed in? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:52, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

Its simply AutoWikiBrowser. MechQueste 18:55, June 22, 2020 (UTC)
Well that simplifies the technology side of the issue. My other concern is that you have shown a repeated unfamiliarity with the policies here and an eagerness to make up your own rules when it comes to addressing various situations. I have strong reservations about putting these choices farther under the radar by having them obscured by a bot flag. Given the rapid pace of some of your recent edits it's pretty clear you are already using AutoWikiBrowser which again raises the issue that you do what you want and then ask later if it's okay. I have very strong reservations about enabling more of this type of behavior. --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:22, June 22, 2020 (UTC)
Please consider it withdrawn then. MechQueste 19:29, June 22, 2020 (UTC)
Also, to clarify. I have not used AutoWikiBrowser recently. I rename pages and they are automatically updated on pages by a script from here. That thing automatically updates the file link name in the pages. It is rapid in nature and is semi automated in nature. Its not act now and request later, and that's a red herring comment. To address things about making up policy, I would like to hear specific examples of me in action, on my talk page of course. I would appreciate an opportunity to correct them. MechQueste 19:44, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

At 12:57, June 21, 2020 you edited the text of a link in 12 different pages in less than a minute using the exact same edit summary. This pattern is common activity for an automated tool aka a bot. Does your script allow for editing the text of pages outside of file names?

  • 12:57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Unidentified first year boy ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback]
  • 12:57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Vault of Ice ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback]
  • 12:57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Eliza ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback]
  • 12:57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Coma ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback]
  • 12:57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Chauncy ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback]
  • 12:57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Icy Corridor ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback]
  • 12:57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Fire-Breathing Potion ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback]
  • 12:57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Somnambulism ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback]
  • 12:57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Fire Protection Potion ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback]
  • 12:57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Jinx on the post of Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback]
  • 12:57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Freezing Spell ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback]
  • 12:57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Memory Potion ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback]

--Ironyak1 (talk) 20:46, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

That was an one off time I did use AWB. MechQueste 20:48, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

So again, this is part of you choosing to do what you want and asking later for the proper approval. You also then lied about about these actions when it was brought up. All these choices together make for some serious concerns given your permissions. --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:59, June 22, 2020 (UTC)
Were the edits you are referring to inaccurate? Were they counter-productive in any way? Or (apart from the one-off unauthorised use of AWB) were they helpful and correct? Sirius (talk) 21:06, June 22, 2020 (UTC)
It's a one-off identified use of AWB - I am not going to dig through the thousands of edits to find out if this is true or not as well. That's the problem with lying - it casts your statements as being untrustworthy by default. Regardless of whether the edits are helpful, the use of automated tools to rapidly change dozens or hundreds of pages at once has enormous risks involved, the least of which is flooding Wiki Activity and obscuring other edits/potential vandalism, which is why there is a process to request these tools to be utilized. The user involved must be considered trustworthy by the community as they have a disproportionate ability to change the wiki in ways that are difficult to review and extremely time-consuming to correct.
There is a community here that has long managed to handle its affairs through well-established policies and processes centered around open discussion and finding common agreement. Users that feel they can do whatever they want regardless of the community or its policies tend to cause enormous disruption like these. My role as an administrator is to look out for the entire community and its interests which is why I ask the questions I ask and have to double-check on requests such as these. MechQueste's actions are clear red-flags against allowing their use of such automated tools here. --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:24, June 22, 2020 (UTC)
That was my fault. It was not a deliberate lie but a mistake on my part. I should have said it in the first place. I've removed myself from the AWB enabled users list. MechQueste 21:50, June 22, 2020 (UTC)
You directly said "I have not used AutoWikiBrowser recently" despite using it just yesterday and then try to claim my related comment as being a red-herring. That is obviously a lie, and apparently a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue further. If you can't even be clear and honest with your use of these tools already then it's clear that you should not be trusted with them here. Sorry, bad choices have poor outcomes. --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:03, June 22, 2020 (UTC)
It was one mistake, overlooking one single use of AWB. I honestly don't believe MechQueste's intentions were at all malicious, or that he is at all untrustworthy. He is requesting bot permissions literally for the reasons you said, so that he is not "flooding Wiki Activity and obscuring other edits/potential vandalism". He has the wiki's best interests at heart, and his edits have been helpful and productive. He is trustworthy. Sirius (talk) 22:22, June 22, 2020 (UTC)
He gave himself AWB permissions nearly 2 months ago without any recorded discussion with an admin or bureaucrat. He is now asking for to be trusted with extra permissions while directly lying to an administrator about his activities. Thanks but we clearly have vastly different notions of what trustworthy behavior means. --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:35, June 22, 2020 (UTC)
He did not directly lie to you intentionally, please stop thinking badly of him purely based off of that. He told me it was a genuine, innocent mistake, that he forgot he had used AWB that one time. He forgot. That's it. He just forgot. Everyone makes mistakes, I'm sure even you make a few every now and then. He isn't trying to obfuscate anything, quite the contrary in fact, he is trying to come to an agreement with you. And as he has already said, he has now removed himself from the AWB users list under his own volition. Sirius (talk) 22:53, June 22, 2020 (UTC)
Again, you are welcome to your opinion, but MechQueste has a series of actions that have been of concern and this is just yet another example. Sorry if your not informed of all the issues, but it is my responsibility to be. I'll will discuss the overall situation with a bureaucrat, because that is how do things here, and we will go from there. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:01, June 22, 2020 (UTC)
MechQueste has already politely requested that you give examples of this 'series of concerning actions'. I'm sorry, Yak, but you're not being very clear as to what MechQueste is supposed to have done. Sirius (talk) 23:08, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

I have had these discussions directly with MechQueste in the past. Why are you inserting yourself into this issue? --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:10, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

This is a public discussion. I am allowed to share my opinion here. Sirius (talk) 23:15, June 22, 2020 (UTC)
You are and it's been noted - thanks. --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:19, June 22, 2020 (UTC)
That's enough IronYak1. There is no need to be condescending to users and to add insult to injury. You don't own this community. A user asked for additional permissions, followed the rules, made a simple enough mistake, acknowledged that, removed themselves from the AWB list, and has other users supporting them. Three users support their request and they are only trying to help the community.
Have your discussion with the bureaucrat in the light of day and in front of everyone if you actually care for the community. There is no secret cabal and no shadow council where you get to "decide the fates of others". This is a community and you have forgotten that. You can either be a member of the community trusted with a few extra bells and whistles or not. There is no place in this or any community for your bad faith actions.
What are those bad faith actions:
1. Assuming MechQuest has some hidden agenda instead of taking their words at face value that they made a mistake.
2. Stating that you are going to take action without involving the person in the matter. You don't own this wiki - you can have a public forum to discuss you ideas but you can't kick people down or out for good faith actions.
3. Attempting to hide and obscure official actions of the wiki behind the scenes so as to make them unable to be discussed by normal users. This isn't real names or other items like credit card numbers that in public can't be discussed.
4. If this was some problem going back through time, have you brought this up and addressed it at the time or were you just saving this to go after a user? An admin talks to people right then and there and goes above and beyond to be impartial and fair. You clearly have some animus towards MechQuest and aren't acting in an impartial manner. You yourself stated above that you would take actions behind the scenes and solve this.
5. You have deemed MechQuest "guilty" without even giving them a chance to refute those allegations. Again, completely bad faith.
6. You clearly have a "list" of items or "supposed evidence" of additional wrong doing but don't state that. You state there is a "series of concerning actions" but refuse to provide it when asked. Secret evidence is not evidence. This isn't the Spanish Inquisition.
If I were active in this community, I'd call for a vote on your bad faith actions and request for you to be demoted from admin. You clearly don't take your responsibilities as admin seriously and have shown that with your bad faith actions listed above. You are here to serve the community, not to lord over it. You've clearly forgotten what admins must do and the level of responsibility they must hold themselves to. You are to be an example to the community of what a user can aspire to be. Take some time to reflect upon that and if you find you can't act in good faith in all things, and with the communities best interests in mind, have the good graces to step down on your own and save the community the trouble of removing you. GS877 (talk) 23:31, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

You have no contributions here GS877, is that correct? It appears that you are more than jumping to conclusions and accusing me of "bad faith" without having been a part of this community at all. It is rather odd for you to come out of nowhere and berate another user - how did this issue come to your attention exactly?

I think I've made my point clear about MechQueste and how they have gone about this request, as well as answered Sirius's questions repeatedly. I of course don't own the community, but I do uphold the policies and procedures here such as how Requests for Additional Permissions are handled, and how the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy works, polices that predate my tenure but which I must work to uphold. Similarly, we have long established processes for discussing issues with users which includes all users with additional rights. I am asking to talk with a Bureaucrat to get another opinion on the matter and am have not stated that there are any actions being taken at all. Why would you assume there there are additional actions being taken?

As for MechQueste, I have raised my previous concerns about their approach to various situations directly with them. If they would like to air those exchanges in public that of course can be done as needed. In the meantime, I'll wait for a wider discussion with fellow administrators despite the brigading you appear to be engaging in. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:51, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

I was asked to impartially look at the situation from another user. I don't have to be in a community to look at the words you posted and immediately see the bad faith you were assuming. I don't have to jump to conclusions - your own words prove that bad faith.
You repeatedly made the assertion that MechQuest must be lying. Even after pointing out that they had made a simple mistake, you continued to say it was lying. Some how you can read minds now? You even stated that their trustworthiness must be called into question. You stated you wouldn't take the time to look through thousands of edits for actual proof but instead made generalizations. You can't impugn the character of someone without proof and not expect others to call you to task for doing that.
You don't need an admin council. Discuss it in public. Other users asked for proof of these actions and you won't talk. You're trying to state "confidentiality" but you brought up the subject. You violated confidentiality and then claim now you can't talk because of it.
Brigading??? I'm not trying to manipulate you at all in some concerted online effort. It wouldn't matter to me if you were a staff member, I'd say the same things. I'm directly confronting what you are doing wrong and that others see what you are doing is wrong. Due you due diligence. Document any findings. Impartially and factually state those. Allow someone to respond. Have the community comment. Come to a resolution.
This is a public wiki for the community. You seem to have forgotten that and have elevated yourself up. Learn some humility and remember that you serve the community - even those you may not agree with. GS877 (talk) 00:49, June 23, 2020 (UTC)
You don't have all the information as to the situation, nor could have as you haven't been a part of this community at all, but have come to a conclusion already about my actions. That's an interesting, if disingenuous, approach. I asserted that MechQueste had been using AutoWikiBrowser already based on the logs I had seen. He said "I have not used AutoWikiBrowser recently" which is demonstrably and admittedly false as he just used it yesterday. How again is directly stating a falsehood not a lie?
Sorry you don't agree with administrators talking to other admins or bCrats about situations that affect the wikis they are commonly responsible for, but that is common and standard practice here. Again, this is a well established community with years of experience in applying long held policies and procedures. The fact that you are trying to cast a simple discussion as some sort of "secret tribunal" is both uninformed and inaccurate. The fact that you, who lack any of relevant history or context, would then feel that calling for an admin to step down is a reasonable request only emphasizes this attempt "to manipulate" the situation. Perhaps react to actual actions of concern instead of presuming the worse about people you know nothing of?
If MechQueste wants to go down the path of discussing his previous comments and actions of concern that we have discussed elsewhere, I'll let him raise those. I have no interest in airing dirty laundry for the satisfaction of outside observers. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:21, June 23, 2020 (UTC)
As I have already made clear, the 'lie' was a genuine mistake, he forgot he used AWB yesterday, he didn't mean to lie. Easy mistake to make. I don't see why you are still failing to move on from that one mistake. Sirius (talk) 01:29, June 23, 2020 (UTC)
So it takes some effort to setup AWB and pick a set of pages to change - doesn't just happen on its own, take it from someone that uses such tools regularly.
Intentionality is not required for a statement to still be a lie. Why don't you move on your interpretation that it was a "genuine mistake"? Could it have been an intentional attempt to cover up a bad choice? How do you know one way or the other? See how opinions work - you have your reasons to believe what you do and I have mine.
Regardless, the fact that MechQueste cannot accurately report their activities on the site from yesterday does not lend much confidence to granting them even more rights to edit via automation, under cover, and en masse. --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:45, June 23, 2020 (UTC)
And here is where you are wrong again. "Could it have been an intentional attempt to cover up a bad choice? How do you know one way or the other? See how opinions work - you have your reasons to believe what you do and I have mine." You are assuming bad faith. You assume it was a lie on purpose and therefore rights will be denied. I don't care if it's for a bot or for adminship approval or a normal edit - you're supposed to assume good faith. You should have taken their word for it and said "You know what, I completely understand. We all make mistakes. Try to be more accurate in the future and I appreciate your honesty after the fact." You're not supposed to use your "opinion", you're supposed to use facts. You asked a question, they answered (incorrectly), you mentioned this error with facts, they apologized and corrected their statement. They didn't try to hide or misrepresent anything. They forgot. It happens. Now if that happens three times a week for a month, two things: 1) you have a memory problem of some sort, see your doctor or 2) you likely aren't being truthful and your actions aren't helping this community. Let's have a friednly talk about this and figure out a resolution.
Whatever your beef with MechQuest is, let it go. It's really clear you have a problem with them and it's clouding your judgement. Be an admin. Be fair to everyone. No two sets of rules stuff. You don't have to grant a permission but you don't have to drag them through the mud to do it. That's not right.
You're not happy that others are pointing this out. That's also quite clear. Doesn't matter if I never post or work on this wiki at all - as a fellow admin - I would call anyone out for bad faith adminship. It's not right to do to users and we're better than that. We're supposed to be trusted members. We should hold each other accountable. GS877 (talk) 02:07, June 23, 2020 (UTC)
And again, you are not aware of the full situation, but have a very strong opinion regardless. This tap dancing around lying is quite odd to watch - are you at least admitting it was a lie now? The only reason it came out was because I was reviewing the user's contributions. This isn't dragging them through the mud, it is clarifying what the truth of the situation is after it was obscured by their statements.
There isn't two sets of rules, there is one as to how Requests for Permissions and Voting works here - feel free to read up on the Policies if that helps. I would ask the same questions and look into every user's contributions the exact same regardless because that is part of being an admin here. The discussion at hand is whether or not MechQueste should be granted a bot flag applied so he can rapidly edit en masse and under cover. I clearly say no, for the obvious reasons given as well as others that can be discussed if he wants to. As he has withdrawn his request, I'm not sure he wishes to take this discussion further.
Sorry if you're not fully informed; be part of this community for months and years and then you can be. If you think it is "bad faith adminship" to ask questions and highlight concerning behavior before granting someone a license to edit thousands of pages at once behind the scenes then again we have a clear difference of opinion. If you feel I have overstepped my bounds by enforcing the Voting Policy and asking questions about the requester's contributions, then please request a Bureaucrat to review. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:35, June 23, 2020 (UTC)
I am not going to add to this vote anything because as of now I don't have a clear picture of the issue. One thing that I am going to say is that Yak isn't a bad faith admin. So I'd request non HPW community users to stand down and think about the terminology that they use towards respected users of this community. Reverb frost (talk)
You fail to move beyond the use of a word. "lie". That single thing seems to be the hill you choose to die on. You clearly aren't acting in good faith. You refuse to listen to others pointing out this behavior.
You keep attempting to put words into my mouth and tell me my position. You attempt to cloud the issue with "me not understanding / not being fully informed". It's very polite way to attempt to stab at me with a smile on your face. I don't have to be a part of any community to see bad faith adminship. You don't need to know the tiny details over years to see when someone is acting in bad faith.
I don't have to go to the bcrat - I'm telling you right here. Right to your face and everyone else can see that. You're quibbling over some tool behind the scenes and pushing away an editor that wants to help. Most communities would love an active editor but I guess you only want the ones who do what you think they should do. Oh, wait, that's me putting words in your mouth. I shouldn't do that or I'd be a hypocrite.
Might want to think a few minutes about pushing away editors - especially ones with technical enough knowledge to run a bot. Just a small suggestion. But what do I know? I've not been here for years, so my "opinion" doesn't matter. You made that very clear. GS877 (talk) 02:51, June 23, 2020 (UTC)

I should disclose, firstly, that I was directed to this discussion by both MechQueste and Ironyak1 almost simultaneously yesterday, and told them both I'd leave my full thoughts here as soon as I could. I attempted to be as impartial in my analysis as possible.
I must say, right off the bat, that the whole purpose of having discussions in Requests for Permissions is to scrutinise users who wish to submit themselves to attain additional permissions/privileges/responibilities — Ironyak1 did just that, expressing his specific concerns, and that cannot be seen as acting in bad faith (even if curt words did seem to have been, at one point, exchanged as the discussion escalated as it did); it's a matter of form and content and no matter how legitimate are one's issues with the former, they do not necessarily carry to the latter.
That said, the facts Ironyak1 brought up, of MechQueste's prior unauthorised use of AWB and subsequent failure to report it (even though it had happened just the day before), remain and are indeed relevant examples of bad conduct, and do indeed, in my opinion, cast reasonable reservations on whether we should allow the bot flag request, regardless of whether it was a honest mistake or a deliberate lie. MechQueste admitted they were at fault, and the rest of the long discussion above, from what I could gather, had very little of useful substance to add (indeed, it comprises mostly people speaking of others' intentions; MechQueste did not seem to participate further). I would like to remind everyone that civility and moderation are imperatives of any collaborative effort, such as this wiki.
To conclude what is already a long message, I would like to ask MechQueste to clarify if they're still pursuing the bot flag authorisation of we should consider it withdrawn? If the latter, then continuing this discussion is pointless; if the former, I think all possible issues have already been expressed clearly enough to allow everyone to make their own minds up. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:00, June 24, 2020 (UTC)

For full disclosure, I was informed of this discussion by MechQueste. As a Bureaucrat, albeit a fairly inactive one, there's some things I would like to add into the discussion. Everyone here is talking about bad faith. Bad faith editing, bad faith adminship. That notion is underpinning the entire discussion. It's basically "what if this thing is bad?" and "what if someone is lying?" It is also, in my opinion, entirely the wrong way to look at this.
Wikis are built on a general principal: Assume Good Faith. It should be assumed that an editor is going to be helpful and constructive rather than the opposite. I would like to think that this is still the norm on the Harry Potter Wiki in general, and we assume that those users who have chosen to contribute to the wiki in a significant way are here for the betterment of the wiki in general. Yes, there will always be disagreement and discussion about how things should be done, but I would like to believe that everyone wants the same outcome.
Now, to address the bot situation directly, without touching on the specifics of the issue since that appears to have reached an impasse. My main wiki is Wookieepedia where bot usage is common so I see the advantages of having bots do mundane tasks. That said, bot use is not a free-for-all and is covered with a strict policy. There is also a separate process covering requests for the bot to be deployed, including an archive. With that in mind, I would propose the creation of a Bot Policy for use on this wiki so that any usage of bots by any user can be monitored and dealt with accordingly. If one of the issues arising from this is about the bot being used maliciously, then a strong policy should alleviate concern about its potential misuse and give administrators options to deal with it should the need arise.
Now I'm directly addressing both MechQueste and Ironyak1. It appears to me that there are definitely issues between the two of you. Judging by the state of this discussion, I would suggest resolving them by talking to each other and attempting to settle any issues between you. For this, I offer myself as an impartial mediator due to my lack of involvement with the wiki over the last several years. - Cavalier OneGryffindorcrest(Wizarding Wireless Network) 23:53, June 24, 2020 (UTC)


Hello folks,

I understand there may be some confusion about my actions. Before I comment on anything on a decision to withdraw my bot use, I ran a bot without asking the administrators for explicit approval, and did not explicitly reveal it. I use bots on many other wikis and it slipped my mind as I'm so used to using them. I should have looked first and asked before running that bot. Honest mistake. Sometimes you get used to having that level of autonomy and forget that some communities have higher standards for bot use.

I haven't responded earlier to this discussion on purpose. I waited for a day just so the situation and tensions could be cooled down soemwhat (in deference for a bureaucrat's comment on the page, of which I welcome.)

I want to take the time to address a few things:

1 I made the few edits as AWB and forgot about it. I made a flurry of edits that day where I made a lot of edits updating file names so they are descriptive. Amid that flurry, I just forgot about it. I have listed the intended usage of a bot in the above request.

2 The claim of lack of familiarity is not warranted. I am aware of policy, specifically these set of policies. Are there additional OFFICIAL policies I haven't been informed of? Which policies are these (if any) that I am not aware of and actively violating? Is there a specific bot (or perhaps preferences) I am contravening? If there are policies/rules, please, bring them forward for everyone to see. The community rules that are agreed on by everyone and documented in the policy. I'd like to look, process, and follow those rules. Th

3. If there are legitimate concerns about my safe use of the bot, please list what those are in detail with examples, and also what I can do to prove my skill level to show I am capable of technically using the bot. You don't have to like me or my style. Coding isn't a personality contest. I'm just here to help the community.

The community is supportive of my request for bot permissions based upon the votes of 3 people above. The request is not withdrawn, that's a separate issue, but I want the admins to decide this issue.

Right now, there is tension between editors and I would humbly accept Cavalier One's offer of mediation. We can therefore discuss policy, proper forms of editing, and make this wiki amazing.

Thank you.

MechQueste 00:18, June 25, 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Cavalier One. As I think I've made clear over the many years, I believe having and following policies to be a good thing and that part of being an admin is making sure everyone is abiding by them equally. There is plenty of evidence to support this notion if that is in any question, right? This may come off as being a stickler (or worse based on the some of the anger being directed my way) but it is not acting in bad-faith; it's making sure every user is operating under the same well-established community standards, regardless of their role or permissions.
As such, I agree that a full bot policy here would be helpful, although I would note that the basis for Wookiepedia's bot policy is much the same as https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Help:Bots & https://community.fandom.com/wiki/Help:Bots. One of the highlights of that page is that "AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) makes use of a whitelist called a "check page [...] This is done to restrict unauthorized bot programs from being run on communities." Note the language - how was MechQueste's use of a bot authorized? I have seen no messages to an admin or a bureaucrat on this matter. Did I miss a conversation somewhere?
Regardless, on April 25th, MechQueste used his newly gained Content Moderator rights to add himself to AWB's white page. These were permissions he had previously requested me to grant him so he could incorrectly change the categorization of some images, claiming that my bot had made an error but him actually failing to understand the British conventions for suffixes and that the categorization was correct. The other dozenish stray images could be adjusted by hand or even added to the task of a current bot as needed. Given this desire to use automation to rapidly make incorrect changes, it seemed in the site's best interest to simply deny that request.
As for assuming good faith, I have been operating under such an assumption and have only lightly reviewed MechQueste's activities over the last few months. However, when they are requesting additional rights that rapidly automate and obscure their activities, it is only prudent and the responsibility of an administrator to more fully review what they have been doing. It is not bad-faith to ask questions based on that information, nor is it bad-faith to call out when someone misrepresents their activities. What is the point of having a "Request" process if the expectation is that every request is granted without question or review?
Whether MechQueste intentionally lied about his unauthorized use of AWB or merely forgot, the situation remains that he used his rights to grant himself extra permissions without any discussion with the community, made use of these unauthorized privileges, and then could not recall these actions only 24 hours later. All of this raises serious concerns about granting even more rights to enabling this sort of activity for me.
As for not being aware of or following various policies, MechQueste has requested that I ban people (without them ever having been given a warning) and wanted to blank a user page so the log would not show him making corrections to images on those pages, neither of which are supported by the local policies. He also wanted to delete various user sub-pages, which people had copied off in their personal sandbox for editing or for RP character purposes, despite all of this being perfectly allowed in the policies. I have spoken to him repeatedly about these issues, including a question yesterday on his page that has not been replied to. I will skip the juvenile "talking about people behind their back" that MechQueste has engaged in on Discord along with trying to cast unsupported dispersions on my character and activities as an admin. Unless of course he wants to own up to these actions after the fact as well?
I have attempted to talk to MechQueste repeatedly about his dissatisfaction with how things are done here and have asked why he blames the entirety of that discontent on me. Apparently every other Administrator and Bureaucrat gets a pass because they aren't as active. I guess those of us who work more regularly to support and improve the content and community here get to also be the whipping-boy for every complaint. As this is not my first rodeo, I just treat it as part and parcel of volunteering here, although I wouldn't mind seeing some of these expectations and demands for instant service voiced in Discord be applied to everyone else who has the same or greater rights as me.
In considering your participation in mediation Cav, you are of course of a bureaucrat and can do as you want, but given you yourself have shown to not abide by the local policies in several instances, including granting MechQueste Content Moderator rights two days before the the vote was closed (note that the admin who opened the vote didn't close it, which seems to contravene Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy, and that the Cav's signature on the archive wasn't even done by him, but I guess everyone is fine with these policy workarounds?), I would suggest that you are not neutral in this affair and would suggest Seth Cooper help find a reasonable resolution as they have been entirely outside of this situation until requested to review it by MechQueste and myself.
I would also note that having Councilors being called from off-site to demand an admin step down for asking a user about their contributions, and then couching their extreme demands and accusations in the language of "dying" and "stabbing people" is highly unusual and questionable as to their intent. In my five years of contributions here, I can't recall anything quite like it. How do the Bureaucrats feel about these activities here and is this something we here should expect more of in the future from Councilors?
I know all this makes me sound like a boring and sanctimonious pain in the ass, but when I say the Community Policies are for everyone, it's not just lip service. Sorry to be the stick-in-the-mud to actually point out these issues and repeatedly make the well-intentioned efforts to make sure that everyone is treated equally by following the long-running community standards that have been established here. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:10, June 25, 2020 (UTC)
Let me start out with, I don't care who asks me to look into something, if they ask me for an honest opinion, I tell them up front I'll give them an unbiased honest review. I can't promise I'll be favorable to them but I will look at it. What I found here was the start of a normal voting process and that then devolved into a assuming bad faith and assuming intent. I'll call that out any day of the week. I'll do as I please, comment how I please, and respond how I please. You overstepped your bounds Ironyak1 and you got called out for it. You assumed and continue to assume nefarious intent behind MechQuest's work. Whatever your issue is with them, let it go.
Did you see me call out my rank or did you see me say anything about being a Councillor? I did not. I don't need to throw around a title or be some big shot. I don't care about power. I care when power is abused. I wasn't asked to do anything other than to look at the post and let them know what I thought. No one told me to tell you anything. I commented on my own when I saw what was clearly incorrect behavior for an admin. Your behavior isn't becoming of an admin. You repeatedly and quite clearly dislike MechQuest and it is clouding your judgement. You bash them, assume nefarious intent, and keep doing so. These are not traits of a successful admin. These are traits that are incompatible with being a fair and balanced admin.
You seem to think rules matter so much - but answer me this. Where in all of the archives were you actually put up for a vote for admin through the "Requests for permission" process?
No, I'll wait...
That's right, you weren't. I checked the historical logs. You were given the rights without community input and voting process which is against policy. (I was told this happened by several other people and I confirmed it for myself to make sure). So before you go throwing around allegations of not following the rules, you yourself are guilty of that.
You're an admin. Act like one. Don't whine in your paragraphs above about having to talk to someone, or look over work, or correct mistakes. That's part of the job. You gain no pity from me or anyone else for your blithering for paragraphs above.
You seem to forget that not everyone is perfect - they make some mistakes. If you never made a mistake with a bot, then you can call me wrong. But if you have, then remember what that learning process was. You council a user, you let them know the mistake, you work with them, you say things like "Hey, test this out on like 5 or 10 first. Before you do like 500." "Ask me for a bullshit test - does this make sense what I'm doing?" "If you think you might have to ask, just ask first. It might be better to talk a bit before having to spend a bunch of time undoing work."
You also lead by example. You tell them. "Hey, you messed that up. I'm going to need you to fix that. Here is why that is important. Let this be a lesson to measure twice and cut once. You won't make work for everyone else, you'll make extra work for yourself". You take the time to educate them and work with them. Even if it isn't exactly how you would do it.
I don't use bots. I do it by hand. Hundreds of edits. I like to see and look at the code. I know bots have their place but they aren't for me. It's a skill that requires training and mistakes will be made.
Have you asked yourself what it is about MechQuest and their "need" to categorize images or correct items? Not everyone wants to be up front doing stuff on articles. Some people can't stand things not being organized. Instead of berating them in public for some small mistakes, leverage their strengths. Point out what needs fixing, work with them to come up with a plan, try to get the most help possible.
I'd give advice to anyone becoming an admin - this job isn't easy and there will be times you're going to have to work REALLY hard when you shouldn't have to. It's not just hey I have all this power, it's training in leadership and service. How to grow and maintain and have people look to you for advice. Do I want to even think about going to someone like Ironyak1 to ask about permissions now? No way. Not after I saw what they did to MechQuest. Remember your actions are visible to others.
I stand up for users and for those who have no voice. Because they are afraid to speak up, because thy haven't learned their voice yet. I had to teach myself and it was more pain than you'll ever know. I never want a user to suffer like I did. I'll also stand up against admins who overstep their authority and treat users badly. Ask any staff memeber who I am, then know me. They know what I stand for and what I won't. This is a hobby in a community of like minded individuals. Doesn't matter what they subject is, there is a wiki for it. You can not agree and you still have a place here. It's not a social club where the popular kids rule and people are thrown out.
Be better than you have been Ironyak1. Lay down the weapons and just speak to MechQuest. Remember what it meant to be a brand new user and helping a wiki because you loved the subject. It ain't easy sometimes, but you have to see through their eyes and others to figure out the best course forward. The perfect solution that no one supports isn't as good as the okay solution that everyone supports.
If you have to take some extra time with MechQuest and point out the intricacies and minutiae, do that. Over a decade of time is here and no one knows everything. Also, don't be so stuck to the old ways that you miss the future.
Ask yourself, are you mad at me or mad because I pointed out some flaws in your words and actions? Perhaps it stings a bit because it's true. Knowing when to say you're wrong is tough to do. Learn from your mistakes and assume good faith and work with people. Next time something comes up, head it off before it happens. Ask "hey, saw you doing this. That isn't how we do that but I can show you how in a bit. Save you the trouble of the extra work. Maybe there is actually a better solution than either of us has now."
Be better, go the extra mile, be an example, teach, and never stop learning. GS877 (talk) 03:12, June 25, 2020 (UTC)
Correct, I was granted admin rights by a Bureaucrat as I was the main person around trying to help keep the site on the rails day-in and day-out for many months. This change in permissions was then endorsed by another Bureaucrat. This isn't any secret for all of us who have been here for many years. If you have issues with how that was handled, please take it up with them as it is their purview to grant and revoke such rights, as you are now aware of the details of this common knowledge.
The "voting process" for MechQueste's bot request was not opened by an admin as required by Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy, so yes I removed those voting blocks. This entire exercise thus far is just a discussion about the request. My responsibility as an admin is to uphold the established policies, even when inconvenient or time consuming. No one has to "ask me for permissions" - that is what "Request for Permissions" is all about, and I as an admin don't have the ability to prevent someone from being granted permissions.
All I have done here is express my strong reservations about this user using these tools given their history of either misunderstanding or disregarding local polices that I have directly witnessed. Despite what you think, I am able to have a well-informed opinion on this matter and share it here. Also despite what you also think, I have raised my concerns over some of MechQueste's requests and intended actions with them directly, which they and others can confirm.
For clarity, I am not mad in the least so please don't project or attempt to straw-man. I've been doing this for years so it's never personal, just another day at the ranch trying to uphold community processes and standards, helping improve thousands of pages, and keeping Discussions running as smooth as possible. However the language you use, accusing me of metaphorically "stabbing people", and "whining", and "blithering" and is overly pejorative and not welcome from any user. I would hope a Councilor would understand how to follow the No Personal Attacks Policy. As we have Community Policies you don't get to "do as I please, comment how I please, and respond how I please" so do keep this is mine in your future comments. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:57, June 25, 2020 (UTC)
I don't care for your patronizing words and aloof attitude. You aren't the thought police, the word police, or the action police. You can't tell me what I can or cannot write. How I think, what I feel, or what I can express. I haven't violated any rules yet.
You started this and are now trying to pull rank and list some policy when your arguments have failed.
You yourself are guilty of personal attacks above. So again, you claim to apply the rules equally, except to yourself.
As to your comments here, Don't Ever Threaten Me. I really don't respond well to bullies.
You refuse to listen and/or to learn. It's clear that the half dozen people who reached out to me about you as an admin were correct. Your actions have proven their words valid.
I'm done wasting my time with you. I don't spend my time on things not worth it. GS877 (talk) 09:23, June 25, 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your connection to this is GS877 that would lead you to use such aggressive and violet language but a reminder of the policies is not bullying or threatening you - it's just a reminder of the local policies that help keep things civil and reasonable here.
As for the "half dozen" people who reached out to you, I would encourage them to voice their complaints and concerns so they can be addressed. My talk page is always open, or they can make a Request for administrator attention so other admins or bureaucrats can help resolve whatever issues there may be. The "whisper campaign" that some here are engaging in is neither honest nor productive for the community. If I broken a policy or breached the faith of the community, please bring it forth so it can be discussed and resolved. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:24, June 25, 2020 (UTC)
Now this is an interesting conversation. I have been following this discussion since it started, and I just want to say that it seems that it is getting the community no where. It looks like that everyone is just repeating themselves and making the same points over and over again. I don't really want to say anything without everyone being calm and composed, but I think that if the administrator(s) feel that someone is not fit enough to be granted additional wiki permissions then I don't know how comfortable I would be with that happening. No matter what the intentions of any user are, violating community policy is not allowed.
I hope that this can be resolved soon in a civil and dignified manner, without people trying to undermine one another. Cheers, -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk     Council-icon-FANDOM.svg GDM.svg 04:42, June 25, 2020 (UTC)

I too have been following the discussion, and I hope we can find a solution soon. I just wanted to share a few of my own thoughts, and see if I can help to find a solution.

I think MechQueste has done good work for our community. But I feel concerned about users feeling able to just grant themselves permissions to do things without gaining community support first, and later start a voting process for it against policy protocol. That at least shows less policy knowledge than they should know by now. Loads of editors work very hard for years too, and would one day like higher permissions and so it's unfair for anyone to try and grant their own.

I understand when you ask for permissions or you support it, your hoping it will be a positive experience. But an editor should be able to voice valid concerns and any negative opinions too, and should not be brow-beaten into feeling wrong for doing so. I find it inappropriate to suddenly start asking an informed editor to give up their own, well-earned and approved permissions.

That should not deter an editor wanting their vote to continue appropriately, because an opposing opinion will not stop a person gaining permission if they gain the higher support of our community anyway. They have done good work too, and could continue to try and show everyone they can be trusted. Ironyak did not say they could never gain permissions. I do not think he has threatened anyone or used any language to attack anyone in a personal way. He asked for policies to be followed.

I think we now need to determine if a vote will continue. If not, it should be closed, and the discussion ended because it won't be very helpful to anyone if it continues. - Kates39 (talk) 10:31, June 25, 2020 (UTC)

Ironyak1, since you are citing policy workarounds as your reason for not considering me to be neutral - which I grant is possibly a fair rationale from your point of view even if I find it a weak excuse - then I would also suggest that Seth Cooper is not neutral enough to mediate since he was the bureaucrat who supported your promotion to admin after it was actioned by Starstuff. Since your promotion was also a policy workaround, if you deem myself to be non-neutral because of my actions, then Seth should also fall into this category. With that in mind, I would refer mediation of the dispute to the local Fandom Wiki Manager TimeShade as a true neutral party. - Cavalier OneGryffindorcrest(Wizarding Wireless Network) 12:18, June 25, 2020 (UTC)
I would note Cav that your recent "quasi-procedural" actions directly benefited MechQueste, compared to Seth who just agreed with another bureaucrat on my permissions, aren't really on par as it applies to this situation regarding MechQueste request's for more permissions. I would also note that as former Staff, you also can't really be neutral in the recommendation for another Staff member like TimeShade to play a role. Along with another Councilor being called-in from off-site, this raises the concerns of some brigading action under way to benefit another Councilor. There are lots of other users in the community here who have been more directly involved on a regular and ongoing basis, and who also don't have working ties to the current Councilors or Staff, who could help lend a more informed perspective of course.
However, for TimeShade, or anyone else who wants to more fully understand the situation, I would suggest they at least review MechQueste's Talk Page Archive where I've had to raise concerns about a variety of actions from wanting to rapidly automate a mistaken mass edit, incorrectly mass uploading files, blanking user's pages, and rapidly deleting new articles without any discussion with the community. There are also a list of issues that were raised and discussed in Discord for anyone actually interested in the full picture.
Compared to those not active in the community, I have been working directly with these issues and the user involved for months and years now; my perspective on this topic therefore is not a matter of bad-faith, but rather just an unfortunately overly-informed opinion; which sucks to arrive at, because I do want everyone to fully contribute to the site, but I also can't ignore the ample evidence provided of poor choices being made that are harmful to other users and the wider community. Because, again, that is my responsibility as an administrator, as is sharing my concerns on any "Request for Permissions".
I agree with HarryPotter101 and Kates39, and hope that we can proceed in a civil manner focused on the actual issue and evidence at hand, not the rumor and innuendo being floated about by some. In the meantime, I'm going to go and try to be of some small use to the site, as always. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:24, June 25, 2020 (UTC)
Ironyak1- I believe Cavalier One recommended TimeShade because he is our assigned Wiki Manager, meaning he is our direct liaison to actual Fandom Staff.  Harrypotterexpert101  Talk     Council-icon-FANDOM.svg GDM.svg 16:31, June 25, 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough - probably just a little tired from having uninformed outsiders show up and "lay siege" to the topic. If TimeShade wants to bring themself up to speed on the matter and weigh-in, they are more than welcome, the same as any other user here. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:41, June 25, 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I hadn't really had much opportunity to help around as Wiki Manager with this community prior. That said, I'll be reviewing the latest messages and weigh in on my thoughts on this situaion. —TIMESHADE @fandom |Talk/Wall| - |C| 18:32, June 25, 2020 (UTC)
It's not often that we see discussions like this on the Harry Potter Wiki... This is unseemly.---Xanderen signature 18:59, June 25, 2020 (UTC)

This request was meant as an opportunity to help the site. However, it has brought ire to the community and it does not bode well at all. No one wants to waste any more time here in arguments endless debate and squabbles. All that can be said has been said. For the sake of the community, I will do what is the honourable choice for all.

Under the advisement of staff and admins, I hereby withdraw my request. This is not an acknowledgment of defeat. In fact, I will continue to work and improve the site for all Potter fans, with transparency and a strong desire to help others. MechQueste 19:01, June 25, 2020 (UTC)

This is really dissapointing that such a trusted user cuz of just one mistake has been denied to run their bot over here. I'm always for this request if it's ever re-visited again. I would just say Ironyak1 has the habit of being partial to users with whom she has grudges on. She has shown not a very polite way of conversing to users/admins in past and has always been demeaning to them whether it's to to point out that "one don't have an appropriate English" or " one is attacking others". I hope she would start being neutral where she would hear the community as a whole not just her "own selected trusted members" like her chosen mods. I expect some justice in future for such good users like mech and others. Also, we are not here for nothing- if such long time contributions still make us untrustworthy and red flags for an admin- I don't really see the motivation for us to keep contributing to this site. Let's hope this wiki don't crumble because of her and her selected mods.

 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 08:48, June 26, 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. Before I begin, I'd like to make my intentions clear: I am here to mediate the ongoing issues. I am not here to impose a resolution on this matter. That said, here are my thoughts.

  • As previously mentioned before, IronYak was well in their right to question MechQueste's recent use of their bot.
  • Regardless if what MechQueste said was true or not, it was dragged on longer than it should've been and there were things called out that weren't relevant to this particular request.

As MechQueste has withdrawn from their bot request, I'd ask everyone to please refrain from adding to this particular discussion. Since the concerns are focused on IronYak's conduct over this, I'd still like to continue this discussion elsewhere where I can mediate. From my understanding, Project:Requests for administrator attention should be the best place to do so? Or is there another preference? Please let me know. I know this seems to be an unusual situation for this wiki, so I have hope this could be resolved sooner than later. —TIMESHADE @fandom |Talk/Wall| - |C| 22:21, June 26, 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input TimeShade. While "Request for administrator attention" could work, it is generally used more for daily nuts and bolts issues such as page protection or user blocks that need administration to handle. I would suggest The Wizengamot Forum to be a better candidate for continuing the conversation as needed, if that fits your needs, but am open to whatever works. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:31, June 26, 2020 (UTC)

Administrator

These users are able to delete and protect pages along with blocking users.

Bureaucrat

These users are able to grant and remove adminship, and grant and remove rollback privileges.

Discussions Moderator

These users are able to delete/lock/edit posts, moderate the chat feature, and delete blog comments.

See also

*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+