Wikidata:Requests for comment/Restrict creation of properties to some users
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Discussion seems to have died down. There is no strong consensus for any option, but there is clearly more support for having a new group to make properties and close property discussions over any other options. Also, users creating a property should have a notice telling them the proper channel for making one. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RFC related to this issue. --Ricordisamoa 04:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restrict to admins/sysops
[edit]- Neutral --Nightwish62 (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Toru10 (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Ricordisamoa 14:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Faux (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sixsi6ma (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Vogone talk 13:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Izno (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Bill william compton (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Matthiasb (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 21:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Lukas²³ talk in German Contribs 00:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — ΛΧΣ21 00:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral --Stryn (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose a right restricted only to admins, but Support one given to both admins and "property creators". — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 03:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose All admins should have this right, but not only admins -- Milad A380 talk? 16:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Йо Асакура (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Vacation9 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral although I feel this would limit creation too much. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 04:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restrict to rollbackers
[edit]- Oppose --Nightwish62 (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Toru10 (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Vogone talk 13:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Izno (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Lukas²³ talk in German Contribs 00:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Stryn (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Йо Асакура (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Vacation9 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose totally different tasks in mind ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 04:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restrict to autopatrolled
[edit]- Support --Toru10 (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Nightwish62 (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral --Vogone talk 13:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral --Izno (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Lukas²³ talk in German Contribs 00:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral --Stryn (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, first choice. Autopatrolled users are those who are unlikely to make any damage, and this sounds like a reasonable threshold. The requests for autopatrolled rights are granted immediately.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Йо Асакура (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Vacation9 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 04:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't see the need for a new group. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restrict to Autoconfirmed users
[edit]- Support -- Docu at 21:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Vogone talk 17:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Йо Асакура (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Vacation9 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restrict to a new group that has to be defined
[edit]- Support --Nightwish62 (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — ΛΧΣ21 22:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Toru10 (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral --Vogone talk 13:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Izno (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Rschen7754 20:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Bill william compton (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Matthiasb (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Would this right be bundled with the admin toolkit? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's my understanding. We'd have this right and it will also be bundled to the admin toolkit. — ΛΧΣ21 21:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 21:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Lukas²³ talk in German Contribs 00:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support --Stryn (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Faux (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral --Ricordisamoa 08:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, provided it's also bundled with the admin toolkit. If anyone supporting thinks it shouldn't be bundled, please speak now or forever hold your peace. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support only trusted user should have this right, but limiting on admins is too restricted -- Milad A380 talk? 16:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, second choice, unnecessary bureacracy.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I just voted neutral
;-)
Regards, Vogone talk 18:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I just voted neutral
- Support --FelGru (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support Йо Асакура (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Vacation9 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 04:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Side poll on naming
[edit]If this option passes, what should the right be named? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Property creator
- Weak support for now... I can't think of anything better. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why don't we activate the editinterface permission for this wiki? Users in this group could edit all protected pages and in my opinion this is on almost the same trust level like letting users to create properties. Regards, Vogone talk 01:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. I think editinterface needs more trust than a property creation. --Izno (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it would be a great idea to grant property creation rights to any user who might vandalize other pages.
;-)
And if a user breaks accidentally something in ns8, it still can be reverted by several admins. Regards, Vogone talk 02:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it would be a great idea to grant property creation rights to any user who might vandalize other pages.
- Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. I think editinterface needs more trust than a property creation. --Izno (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Vacation9 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Nightwish62 (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No restrictions at all
[edit]- Oppose --Nightwish62 (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Toru10 (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Sixsi6ma (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Vogone talk 13:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Izno (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Matthiasb (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Rschen7754 22:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Lukas²³ talk in German Contribs 00:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Stryn (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose --Ricordisamoa 08:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Property creation process must have post-discussion basis (same as item creation or article creation in Wikipedia). — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Йо Асакура (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Vacation9 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 04:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong alerts on related pages
[edit]- Oppose --Nightwish62 (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support There should be alerts anyway … --Vogone talk 13:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Same as Vogone; we need this regardless of the ones above. — ΛΧΣ21 21:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Vogone. Lukas²³ talk in German Contribs 00:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yes, there should always be alerts on relevant pages. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support --Ricordisamoa 08:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, do not see how the alerts could harm.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Vacation9 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am reopening this RFC as there is still no consensus about who can assign the property creator user permission. I have opened a new section for clarifying this. Regards, Vogone talk 16:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Per consensus, administrators will be the ones with the technical ability to manage the
'property creator'
user right. — ΛΧΣ21 21:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per consensus, administrators will be the ones with the technical ability to manage the
Administrators
[edit]- Support per comment below. --Rschen7754 19:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support I guess. Legoktm (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Adminship should be required to add/remove Property creator. Vacation9 19:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Nightwish62 (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Rschen. FrigidNinja 22:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. More admin power mwahahahaha. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Stryn (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators and Property creators
[edit]- Oppose Adminship should be required to assign user rights. --Rschen7754 18:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Rschen7754. --Ricordisamoa 19:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Rschen. Vacation9 19:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Nightwish62 (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Stryn (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Others
[edit]- Comment, Bureaucrats is also a possibility? With/without administrators? --Nightwish62 (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, of course. We just need a consensus because otherwise the "Property creators" user group won't be created. Regards, Vogone talk 20:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]