Wikidata talk:Bureaucrats

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Electing bureaucrats and permanent admins[edit]

Given that we will begin promoting permanent admins at the end of December, we need to elect at least a few of our own bureaucrats by no more than about 5-6 weeks from now.

Here arises a few questions:

  1. Should candidates be required to be admins? If yes (as on most other Wikimedia wikis), if a temporary admin is elected as the first bureaucrat, does his/her adminship become permanent immediately? This is important, as we must elect at least one bureaucrat before we can get permanent admins.
  2. After the first bureaucrat is elected, should existing temporary admins be able to confirm their adminship as permanent before the official reconfirmation? If so, how? Would subsequent candidates for bureaucratship be required to do this before nominating for bureaucratship?
  3. What should be the other requirements? Should we require at least 1 month's activity?
  4. What should be the passing !vote ratios, and how long should bureaucrat nominations run for?
  5. On a more minor note, should we use transclusion like we currently do for adminship nominations?

I'm not making a proposal here; I'm seeking the community's input on this. Although this may be premature, given that the project didn't exist about 2 weeks ago, I would like to get some ideas ready, so that we don't have to rush.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is something that we should be worrying about now... But I'd say that for the first round, let any admin run for it and have the passing rate the same as admin. All of the other aspects could be the same too. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing is that whatever temp admin who runs for it, does his/her adminship become permanent? It would seem redundant to require reconfirmation for adminship if the community already supports bureaucratship.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense would suggest that if a user can be trusted with permanent bureaucrat, then they can also be trusted with permanent admin. If not, then we might have some larger problems.. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But why do we need a bureaucrat before the end of the year? We could wait half a year until there are sufficient permanent admins (and no more temporary ones). In the meantime stewards could do their job as they do right now. NNW (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There is no technical requirement for bureaucrats to be admins, so I'm fine with candidates for bureaucratship who are not admins — the election will tell if they are trusted enough anyway. BTW, stewards can do the job until we have bureaucrats, so there is no deadline there.
  2. I'd prefer they can't, as this reduces the time we have to know them better.
  3. None, IMO. Again, the election will tell if they are trusted enough.
  4. No opinion.
  5. Yeah, transclusion is a good idea.
Best regards — Arkanosis ✉ 11:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some answers to Jesper Deng questions:
There is really no deadline to get bureaucrats.
  1. No, it does not really matter IMO whether the canditates are admins or not.
  2. No, the whole idea of that rule is to get to know the admins better.
  3. I don't think we need one.
  4. The same passing rate as administrators have.
  5. No opinion.--Snaevar (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To anyone saying there's no deadline for bureaucrats, please note that we cannot elect permanent admins without any, and note that admins elected after the end of the year are going to be considered permanent.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no requirement at all that a wiki must have bureaucrats in order to be able to elect permanent sysops. --MF-Warburg (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhm, what? Jasper_Deng, that's simply false. I don't know why you are saying that. As MF-W said and as steward I confirm there's absolutely no rule that forbids a project having permanent admins without having local bureaucrats. In fact we at Meta have been granting permanent adminship on projects without local bureaucrats. I admit it is not the most frequent, because most RfAs we close are for so small projects that they have one, two or sometimes no supports at all. That's not (and I think it'll not be) the situation at Wikidata. Thanks. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think we need bureaucrats at this point. May be after a year of operation, if gets clear that stewards are overburdened, we could start electing bureacrats, but not now. We already had a popularity contest instead of admin election, I do not see why we need another one. Let people work first and get some respect inside the project, not outside.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion is the same. At present we don't need any bureaucrats because the stewards and global admins are doing a good job. Let the community develop, afterwards we can think about local bureaucrats. --IW 19:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely agree with Ymblanter. --Zanka (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess if there is no change to the rules for 3 months we have permanent admins. I think someone who has permanent admin status for at least 6 months are entitled to participate in the selection of bureaucrats, not for now. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree Ymblanter's opinion, not now. --Sotiale (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Ymblanter. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with every letter of Ymblanter's statement.

    I also believe there may be a case for making the crat role quite different here than from Wikipedia, once phases two and three kick in. In my opinion, the need for admin speed will be relatively high if vandalism here has the potential to affect every Wikipedia. The best way to ensure speed is through having a high number of active admins, and in turn the easiest way to get a large number of people through RfA would be to syphon off as much of the controversial stuff as possible to crats (closing policy debates, RfCs, judging consensus on our equivalent of ANI, block appeals from established editors, etc). The case for this may or may not become apparent as phases two and three launch, but if we repeat the stupidity that was the initial batch of admin elections, we will no longer be able to even discuss the idea, and be lumbered with the train wreck better known as the en.wp model. —WFC— 07:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • WFC makes a good point here. However, admins must still judge deletions, right?--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course, admins will always have control over the technical abilities that they are trusted with. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Deletions would always be an admin's call, yes. As would the decision to block and the decision to protect. Although if you'll forgive me for being picky Ajraddatz, every member of the community has the technical ability to close a sitewide RfC or policy discussion. That doesn't make it an intrinsically good idea to give them free reign. As for block appeals from established contributors, it's not so much a question of trust, but of doing everything we can to ensure that adminship truly is "no big deal" on Wikidata. Regardless of whether we trust admins to do it, the decision between upholding a block of someone who creates 100 items a day, and overturning the original admin's decision, is considered by many to be a big deal. Over time, "mini" big deals such as this tend to have a cumulative effect on editors' opinions about admin criteria, which make recruitment and retention increasingly difficult.

          If we truly believe that we are going to be the central data repository for all of Wikipedia and far beyond, we're going to need a hell of a lot of admins, and we're going to need to be confident that those admins are up-to-date on current standards. The only way to achieve this is through an easy-come, easy-go, easy-return approach to adminship. Any threat to the easy-come part of that equation needs to be nipped in the bud now. —WFC— 10:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat support requirements and other policy[edit]

Because several users are running for bureaucratship now, I'm starting the following:

Proposal: Require 80% support for election, also with a minimum of 8 supports[edit]

To become a bureaucrat, the election outcome must be at least 80% in favor with at least 8 supporting votes after 1 week of discussion. Note that adminship currently requires 75% support or better.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  1.  Support as proposer.
  2.  Support --Stryn (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support 80 or 85, with 8 or 10 supporting. This is the low end of where I'm comfortable, but that might not be a bad thing. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support Sounds good. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support Crats have more responsibilities than Admins. This is a good start. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1 week of discussion is too short, 2 weeks would be better. --Eric-92 (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. This is what almost all wikis do. 2 weeks is too long.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support -- 1 week of discussion with at least 80% agrees from minimum 10 8 voters. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support --Rschen7754 18:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support Conny (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  10.  Support --Techman224Talk 00:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support for the time being, but the minimum threshold of 8 would need to be reconsidered in a year, if the community grows.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  weak support I'm not fond of fixed thresholds, but if we need to have one, 80% is fine for me. — Arkanosis ✉ 13:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 15:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support IW 17:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support --LlamaAl (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support Per Ymblanter. I think 80% support and atleast 8 votes is reasonable for now. As the community grows, and it will, I think, than it should be reconsidered if the current proposal needs to be changed. --Wiki13 talk 18:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support, although at least eight supports might be a bit too low.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  01:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am of much the same mind. That being said, the reason that I didn't make a big deal of it is that, practically speaking, if we can only get eight people to show up over the course of a week to cast a vote on an RfB, the community has bigger problems. As long as there are a lot of people on the project, the percentage will always be the factor that matters more. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support, but only on the assumption that RfB will be a straight-down-the-line vote. If on the other hand crats have the ability to disregard tenuous opposes (but not sig-only supports), then I would expect it to be higher. —WFC— 18:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support for the main proposal, but i would prefer two weeks of discussion, so that more (and less active) people have time to add their vote. Merlissimo (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prerequisites?[edit]

Should nominees be required to be admins already? If so, for how long?--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a little rules-crufty to me. If the community decides they don't want someone to be a 'crat because they're not an admin, they'll say so in their oppose votes. Who knows what'll come up in the future; the more case by case we leave it, the better, IMO. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No prerequisites please, let the community decide on a case-by-case basis. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 case by case - only if necessary. Conny (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
On the English Wikipedia, for example, there is no rule, but there is no chance for a non-admin bureaucrat to be elected since that would never achieve consensus. --Rschen7754 20:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with what Sven said — Arkanosis ✉ 13:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think a RfB should run for atleast 1 week. And regarding if they should be an admin already I personally think yes. On the most wikis you don't really have a chance of becoming a 'crat without being an admin. --Wiki13 talk 18:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For me it only makes sense that only administrators can run for bureaucrat. Looking at the rights configuration, it's obvious that other rights other than administrator were designed to be used in combination with the administrator flag IMHO... although I'm an oldfashioned ;) — MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was elected crat on svwiki without being admin, but I think that was an exception. I wasn't and I am still not working with counter-vandalism, and therfor had/have very little use for the block and delete-tools. Today I am not admin or crat on Wikipedia any longer, but I have a bot with the sysop-tools availible. I do not think we need a rule to be admin to become a crat, but I think it will be the standard-procedure. -- Lavallen (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent adminship and RfBs[edit]

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.

Obsolete discussion with RfBs closed. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify per request, if someone passes an RfB, should they also be confirmed as a permanent administrator through the same request? Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:57, 3 January 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.

Comments[edit]

  • I suggest we freeze all RfBs immediately until two things happen:
    This discussion reaches consensus and gets summarized (we should allow at least a week);
    We agree (or not agree) that a successfull RfB now means that a candidate does not stand for re-election as admin in January.
  • We are not really in hurry, and hasty making bad policies or running elections without policies does not seem to me a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense is what's supposed to govern wikis.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with keeping the requests open until we've reached decisions here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest that we leave the RfBs open, but have the people running start their reconfirmations the day before the first reconfirmation timeslot or during the first reconfirmation timeslot. If the candidates are reconfirmed and their RfB passes, they become a crat then. By doing this, we'll still have 'crats to help with the reconfirmations, but the 'crats will all be reconfirmed. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • By looking at the administrators' list, it looks like we will be doing over 60 confirmations (including those getting adminship recently) over the next three or four months. Having local bureaucrats to promote bots and admins will help lessen the load of stewards, but they cannot demote admins. We could change that so they could demote admins through a site config change. Techman224Talk 01:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For us it just takes a couple of clicks to move one admin from temporary to permanent ;) - We desysop and resysop the user to make a log entry in the rights log for better documentation and easy searching of the users' current status). However as Ymblanter I also suggest freezing all RfBs until the first reconfirmation batch is made. Stewards at Meta will not be granting bureaucrat status to any temporary admin at any project. That has been our practice for many years as it will not make any sense doing it otherwise. That'll cause that in the event an RfB closes now as succesful, we could not promote it until the admin is reconfirmed, as all administrators at Wikidata currently are temporary; and a reconfirmation discussion is to be held nonetheless. Imagine also the paradojic situation that the user later does not achieve the support of the community. I think that it'll be just fine to wait until there are at least some permanent administrators here to start with bureaucrat elections if the community thinks they're needed. Thanks. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I the only one finding all of this a little distasteful?

    Three of the four crat candidates knew that there was consensus not to appoint local crats, and chose to ignore that consensus. Now we're suggesting these very same people should not face the scrutiny that every other admin will. It all appears to be academic now, but nonetheless leaves a sour taste in the mouth. I would strongly suggest that the crat candidates withdraw, allowing us to have a discussion about how to move forward in a less poisonous environment, one in which no user has a vested interest. —WFC— 18:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give bureaucrats technical ability to remove rights[edit]

The following two are proposals to change the current configuration; at this time bureaucrats can add translation administrator, administrator, bureaucrat, and bot rights, but the only right they can remove at this time is bot.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1 - bureaucrats have technical ability to remove adminship[edit]

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.

Original premise for this proposal is invalid. Withdrawn.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We will have over 60 administrators to be reconfirmed. For those who do not pass, it would be nice if bureaucrats could remove the admin status from those who don't, rather than asking stewards. Therefore, I'm proposing that bureaucrats be given the technical ability to remove admin rights.

  1.  Support as proposer.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support --Rschen7754 05:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Oppose I'm personally not comfortable with the idea of this. I can't quite put my finger on why. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It works on Wikipedia and other large wikis. Why shouldn't it here?--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess if I had to blurt out something mildly comprehensible for a reason, it's that being able to remove adminship seems like something that gives 'crats an awful lot of power/reason to be feared, and to me, that's a bad thing. Maybe years of Wikipedia has made me a tad cynical about community mindset, but I'd really like it for admins and 'crats to be low key, uncontroversial, and respected, because things just work better that way than at... well... English Wikipedia. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So adminship is supposed to be no big deal, but we can't remove it without a big deal (local process AND going to stewards)? That doesn't make sense. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only a technical ability. Like stewards, bureaucrats would not be allowed to remove adminship without consensus. If there is a reason to fear a bureaucrat, then maybe it would be a good idea to remove his bureaucratship… — Arkanosis ✉ 14:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think MarcoAurelio below makes my point for me. I don't fear "local godkings", but I do fear the perception that bureaucrats are/have becoming/become "local godkings", because that breaks community bonds down and creates unnecessary latent hostility. 'Crats on English Wikipedia have this ability, but only under a very, very strict set of guidelines, guidelines we neither have nor have thought to create. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If adminship wasn't a big deal, it wouldn't be a big deal to remove the tools from admins that do no admin work for half a year. Alas, that proposal was sunk, primarily by admins. —WFC— 17:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ...What? That proposal is currently going through on the RfC with no (or next to no) opposition. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support --Stryn (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support--Stevenliuyi (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support — Arkanosis ✉ 13:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support IW 17:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support Techman224Talk 19:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support This, that and the other (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support a user should be able to undo any action that they can perform --Iste (D) 11:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose. This is not a big deal, hopefully we are not going to have many permanent adminships to be removed, but for the cases of rage quit or smth it is good if the case is investigated by someone outside the project.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Oppose I've tought about my vote here, and came to the conclusion it's not needed now, I think. Maybe in a year from now. --Wiki13 talk 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Strong oppose - No thanks. No need for local godkings, that's not the role of a bureaucrat. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, for those that don't pass the reconfirmation, since the rights were granted at Meta it'd be good to also log the removals at Meta. It's sometimes a mess trying to find what happened to User:X's rights since the log are split. The system has worked since our projects started and I don't see the need to change it now simply because some projects can do that. Best regards. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Oppose. In a year from now, maybe. Now, definitely not. --Yair rand (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Oppose. I want crats to have it, because I want adminship to be easy-come, easy-go, easy-return. However, this is not currently the case – until the situation changes crats do not need this ability. —WFC— 18:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Oppose, per above. DerHexer (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Oppose Vogone (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Oppose -- Per MarcoAurelio above. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Oppose We do not have clear structures yet so some steward control can be helpful. I think this is only an option for the far future after we a well working precedure. Having bureaucrats with admin removal right needs much more trust and i think a new project always needs some time for increasing trustiness. Merlissimo (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Oppose - we should think in preventing abusing powers, better safe than sorry. Romaine (talk) 12:07, 16 January 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.

Proposal 2 - bureaucrats have technical ability to remove translationadmin[edit]

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.

Consensus is definitely clear. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 03:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of goes in line with the previous proposal, depending on whether admins who requested translation adminship without discussion per current policy, but who then do not pass reconfirmation, also lose translation adminship. In either case, though, the removal of translation admin privileges should be something our (future) local bureaucrats should be trusted to do, and would be useful in the case of using temporary status (for example, to delete a translation page that was really vandalism/spam, which requires the translation admin right).

  1.  Support as proposer.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support --Rschen7754 06:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support --Stryn (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support--Stevenliuyi (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support — Arkanosis ✉ 13:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support IW 17:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support Techman224Talk 19:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support This, that and the other (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support --Iste (D) 11:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support --Wiki13 talk 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Neutral — MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Neutral I cannot imagine a set of circumstances in which this ability would actually be needed, save circumstances where the person holding the rights is also being indef blocked. I don't even really view this as part of "advanced permissions", it's just kept from the general user population because it's difficult to work with and surprisingly fragile. I've nothing against this, and it looks certain to pass anyways, I just don't see it as something that would ever be put into use. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Neutral per Sven Vogone (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support After having thought about this, I do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support -- It's seems no big deal. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  sure -- Merlissimo (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support - is no big issue, bureaucrat can do that. Romaine (talk) 12:07, 16 January 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.

Do we have a need for bureaucrats?[edit]

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.
Moot. --Rschen7754 23:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, consensus was against having bureaucrats. However, since some users are opposing all current RfBs due to a supposed lack of need, we need to clarify whether that consensus still exists.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1.  Needed--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Not needed, yet. There should probably be an announcement of this poll in WD:PC, by the way. --Yair rand (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Not needed, see Yair rand. Lukas²³ talk in German Contribs 18:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Not needed, per all I've said before. Vogone (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Not needed, per my previous points. In the interests of transparency I'll make the point that there is currently no discretion, whatsoever, for the stewards to invalidate an RfB oppose on this basis, which renders this discussion irrelevant while there are live RfBs. —WFC— 19:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Not needed, I wrote per Vogone on the page. Ebe123 (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Not needed the burden of proof is on on the canadate --Guerillero | Talk 21:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Not needed yet --Sk!d (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    changed my vote from oppose. See Merlissimos argument. When we defined the policy we can elect some bureaucrats. --Sk!d (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Right now, no, there is no pressing need. In the future as the project grows, there may be tasks for a bureaucrat to do which we won't want to bother a steward. Go ahead with not having any, but at some point, bring the right back to usage. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 10:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that no projects need bureaucrats. Commons had three successful RfAs in the last month, same as us. Wikispecies had none, but still has local 'crats. Even the English Wikipedia only had three successful RfAs in the same period. Bureaucrats should be present on projects when the local community has matured enough to warrant internal decisions on matters like assigning adminship - and I don't think Wikidata is at that stage yet, as the RfBs indicate. But don't talk about a need for the tools, because as I've said, such a need never exists. And honestly if it ever did - if the user rights were changing /that/ much that stewards were overheating, I'd be scared and suggest that there was a problem. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a bit of misunderstanding of the word "need". I'm saying there might be a situation where bureaucrats are needed, versus, there is a need for users to have the tools (which is what I think you are suggesting that I am saying). Everyone knows the task of bureaucrat is redundant to a steward, but the right still exists for a reason. On en.wiki, we've already had the discussion of whether we need bureaucrats anymore (ironically, started by a bureaucrat) and the community !voted for having them still. There they also handle rename requests, handle demotions of adminship, and non-technical tasks as well. You have to think that if stewards could handle all 700 projects local bureaucrat tasks (whatever they decide locally those tasks should be) that the right would be retired or removed by developers entirely. Like I said, there's no need for a bureaucrat on Wikidata, because there's nothing to do except promotions, which like you said, is fairly low. All I originally suggested, is to be open-minded to promoting bureaucrats in the future, because we may develop local tasks like en.wiki where it might be useful to have a couple of the most active and experienced Wikidata administrators to be a bureaucrat. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify - my original comment was not directed at you, your comment happened to be at the bottom of the list. What non-technical tasks are you speaking of on enwiki, or anywhere else for that matter? In my experience, what a bureaucrat does anywhere revolves around their technical abilities to add/remove user rights. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The en-wikipedia crats handle a steady stream of username change and vansishing requests on and off wiki. --Guerillero | Talk 22:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, the indentation seemed to indicate a direct reply :) Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, both are used around the rights available to bureaucrats. I agree with Sven below, continuing this discussion now is probably not productive (especially since it's more of a technicality of a larger issue), so I'll let it drop. Renames are definitely an areas of use for bureaucrats which isn't present here now, since few people have enough contributions to Wikidata for it to be worth their while requesting rename rather than just re-creating the SUL account with a different name. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Neutral I felt it would be useful to have them around. I still think it would be useful to have them around. A significant segment of the community, however, doesn't want them yet. I think that the worst possible thing to do, then, would be to force the issue. This is something so trivial that creating acrimony and splitting the community over it would be, well, a reprehensible idea. Let's drop it and pick it up no sooner than this summer. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Needed -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (écrire) 15:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Dibutuhkan -- But should established the terms and policies agreed upon by the community first. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support Needed. Atleast on a Temporary basis. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Not needed as yet.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Neutral I think it is needed. The RfA is not a big deal, but the Bots. We need a responsible local group of users who will keep a watch on the bots, and who have the tools to act when they need to. If you are afraid of building a hierarchy of user-rights, the tools to set and remove the sysop-flag can be removed from their user-rights. But I think it is maybe to early to install such userrights now. Let us set a wiki-culture of our own first. -- Lavallen (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Oppose Not needed until after one month. After all, I do expect that the bot-flag request will become more frequent than they have been. That should happen when pywikipediabot is fully compatible with wikidata (in other words: when pywikipediabot bug #3586247 is fixed). I expect that to happen in one months time.--Snaevar (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Needed Like commons nearly all users on all project will also be active on wikidata. So the number of rename request will be much higher than on local projects. secondly phase 2/3 will be live in few month. Then we will have reallly many bot flag request for adding properties. I prefer that this will be approved by local users and also added to local log. No need to have them as soon as possible, but working on policy and then election few bureaucrats will help in future. Merlissimo (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Oppose Perhaps in the future the need for bureaucrats may arise but I don't see right now a need for them. There's the odd botflag request and rename which isn't flooding Meta at all; and given that username renaming is going to be globalized probably the need of them won't be that high either in the future. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support - yes we need bureaucrats, we should be able to do such tasks ourselves - Romaine (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Not needed yet, IMHO --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 03:23, 24 January 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.


Vanishing[edit]

I wonder why vanishing was implemented into the policy. In my opinion, there was not any consensus for that at the discussion – almost same amount of supports/opposes plus many "not sure" comments. Consensus does not look like that for me. Regards, Vogone talk 23:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented out this section for the given reasons. -- Bene* talk 10:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While being biased in the matter in thinking that it isn't needed, I would say that there isn't clear consensus for allowing vanishing. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I didn't vote on that section, so I went and reevaluated the consensus. There appears to be no consensus at the time of the closing, so I have subsequently removed the section entirely from the page. Feel free to review my action. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with this quick modify of an implemented policy. RTV is generally granted among wikis and I didn't see any substantial opposition to the mechanism itself but simply to its abuse, if it is over-used on en.wiki it's, definitely, not our business. Though I believe it's almost a waste of time I'll open another rfc about that point. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to open another RFC, I guess it couldn't hurt to get a wider consensus whether to add this one point or not, but there was enough significant opposition to warrant a no consensus result, and I think most would agree with me on that point. There was also many who thought vanishing was pointless to begin with. The only difference between vanishing and a rename, really, is choosing a "vanished username" and not contributing anymore, so I don't see the need to have an official practice (in my opinion, though there may be some who disagree). If another RFC shows a majority support to have a vanished practice, then so be it, but I feel that was certainly not the case in this last RFC. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major dispute resolution[edit]

I can't find any mechanism for addressing a large dispute that affects a large fraction of Wikidata items. See Help talk:Dates#Days are in Universal Time. My argument is that the relevant data model documents probably specify that Wikipedia dates are in Universal Time (formerly know as Greenwich Mean Time), but editors simply copy whatever date appears in a source into Wikidata without thinking about the fact that dates in sources usually use the time zone associated with the event being described (such as a birth or death). Thus, a large fraction of dates in Wikipedia are false.

What is the proper avenue to pursue this dispute? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WD:RFC. --Rschen7754 20:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Bureaucrats&oldid=598953165"