Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/Bene*

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

✓ Done, clear consensus (27/0/1; not counting my own vote). Vogone talk 15:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bene*[edit]

Vote
RfP scheduled to end at 12 April 2013 15:34 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to become a bureaucrat since the last discussions have shown that the community needs them. I have been an Wikidata administrator now for about four and a half month and got some experience with the tools and the project itself. Many requests for permissions involve the bot flag. I am running a bot (BeneBot* (talk • contribs • logs)) and also created a framework for botworkers, so I have lots of knowledge and experience in this field. Finally I think this project will grow on and we need our own 'crats so I want to help and take on this task.

I am glad if you will give me the trust for this exercise. Best regards, -- Bene* talk 15:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  1.  Support Why not? Bene* is a very experienced coder and bot owner, thus he would obviously be useful for our RFBOTs. Regards, Vogone talk 15:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support, not any reason to why not support. Definitely know what he is doing. --Stryn (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support IW (wikidata addict) 17:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support Rzuwig► 17:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support Lukas²³ talk in German Contribs 17:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support --Iste (D) 18:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support --Rschen7754 21:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support --LlamaAl (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 04:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support Good choice for 'crat. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support per above--Steinsplitter (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support most definitely. Legoktm (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support -- Milad A380 talk? 18:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support Altough it is in my opinion a bit fast to request the right while a RFC which tries to define crats' is still running, I'll support you. --Wiki13 talk 19:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support :) — ΛΧΣ21 19:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support, no problems--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support Experienced bot-op, active in RfBot and project in general, accessible over IRC (a great plus for when users need to reach a 'crat in private). Sven Manguard Wha? 21:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of the comments below, I am  reaffirming my support for this candidate. Yes I know that it is a largely meaningless gesture. I'm doing it anyways though. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support --ValterVB (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Weak oppose An hour ago I left a message for Bene* about his bot (see here) and 10 minutes after that I got a query from Bene* on IRC. In our discussion, he asked if the bot was disturbing me (which I said yes to because it was edit conflicting me) and I asked him to create a request at WD:BRFA. His response to me was basically 'Only if you think so because the other admins like it and are fine with it.' (not an exact quote) and some other stuff which would be impossible not to exactly quote. While the bot policy is not a policy yet, I would at least think someone running for crat could atleast follow the proposed bot policy and/or act like a responsible bot operator. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 19:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Riley Huntley, I asked if it disturbed you because I wanted to know if the bot wasn't working properly. The quote isn't exact as you already mentioned. The bot is running since some hours only and I just let the script run here for test edits and the admins I met liked the feature. However you're right that I should have first created the RFP and then run the test edits and not the other way round. I don't think that I have ignored the (proposed) policy or that I am a unresponsible bot operator. It was only my fault that I did not create the request first. If you think that I wouldn't be a good 'crat though, it is your own opinion. I am trying to explain my actions but you have to decide that on your own. Best regards, -- Bene* talk 19:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I only mentioned the disturb part because that was how the conversation started, I was not trying to imply it was a factor of my oppose. (sorry if that was not clear) No, the quote was not exactly as you mentioned and that is because I was not quoting you, I was just describing what you stated. I disagree that the bot was running the task "some hours only" because the bot ran for a full day. Test edits are made to see how a bot functions (if it functions) and how it could be improved, I don't think you were just doing test edits. Especially because you asked the following "must I stop it in the time between?" Unfortunately, because of these reasons and because Wikidata is now "bot central" (imoh) of Wikimedia now, I feel it is important to have a bureaucrat that follows the (probably soon to be approved) policy because it is what a bureaucrat will be using to assess a bot request. I apologize if I implied that you were an irresponsible bot operator, I was aiming to say 'proposed bot policy and/or act like a role model for other bot operators.' -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your clarification, now I better understand what you are meaning. There were technical reasons why the bot had to run for a longer time, but now I see that I first should have created a RFD. As already mentioned, this is my fault and I stand by this. However I think it was not such a big problem because I stopped the bot immediately when I noticed that. In future and when the policy is approved I will act strictly in accordance with the policy and also order other bot operators to do the same. I hope you will put your trust in me again. Regards, --Bene* talk 18:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked deeper into your contributions, logs and involvement in the community, I have decided that it would be wrong to oppose such a qualified candidate for the above reason alone. Furthermore, I appreciate Bene*'s cooperation and apologize for the confusion. I look forward to working with this user in the future.  Support -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 22:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Oppose Neutral per Riley. The role of a bureaucrat centers around community consensus. I find this to be a gross misunderstanding about what consensus means. Under no circumstances should he use his bot for unapproved tasks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Under no circumstances"? Have you bothered to read the sorta-proposed-not-really "bot policy"? Legoktm (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he should do test edits. However, I still don't like how he responded to this situation. Riley told me that he said that "all admins are OK", without first opening an RfBot.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If everyone is ok with something, isn't that the very meaning of consensus? Legoktm (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but "all admins are OK" isn't the truth. I said the admins I met were OK. --Bene* talk 19:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He meant that no-one complained. That didn't mean everyone necessarily wanted this; just because all admins agree didn't necessarily mean everyone else did either. I'm still overly dissatisfied with his conduct on IRC because of this, so I apologize if I was a bit harsh here, but I still do not believe this role would suit him well based on this incident.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Support --DangSunM (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Support ---- Jitrixis (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24.  Neutral pending a guarantee that he is going to seek and evaluate actual consensus and not to "eyeball it" based on a couple of opinions. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I guarantee that I will support the community's consensus based on the policies we have. If the community supports something I will act like this. I think that is the natural course of action. --Bene* talk 17:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that re-affirms your previous comments; I  Support. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25.  Support --Daniel749 (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26.  Support -- Good candidate. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. support DerHexer (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28.  Support --Paperoastro (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29.  Support, no concerns ;-) --Ricordisamoa 13:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  •  Comment I would say put this request on hold until we have an RfC on defining bureaucrat policy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think we need an RFC to make policy about bureaucrats. Meta has what a bureaucrat is, and we can simply follow that path. — ΛΧΣ21 17:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do have old consensus at WT:Bureaucrats about support requirements, but we need to delineate Wikidata-specific things, possibly including an updated support requirement and prerequisites (like being an admin).--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh well, we can discuss that on the project chat, and maybe start just right after the current discussion is held. Although, with the recent pace of people supporting, I think that each candidate with more than 15 votes and 85% would likely pass :) — ΛΧΣ21 19:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think that even without the bureaucrat RFC concluded, the crat candidates (if they pass) will have enough data on what the community expects of them to be able to stay out of trouble. --Rschen7754 22:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bureaucrat/Bene*&oldid=598955096"