Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining bureaucrats

An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Defining bureaucrats" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.

If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you!

THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.

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.

A clear policy about bureaucratship has been drafted by consensus, I'll implement it into wikidata:bureaucrats within some hours.--Vituzzu (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming a crat

Voting (1)

The standard of 8 votes support and 80% support is upheld.

Support Eight is sufficient. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As noted below, I'm not sure eight is enough for admins, even. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems resonable.--Snaevar (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- At least 15 voters more reasonable for me. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- higher level of trust requires higher level of consensus. Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 01:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting (2)

15 support votes and 80% support is the minimum required to become a bureaucrat.

Support I think we have enough users that 15 votes is not an unreasonable requirement. Legoktm (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Legoktm. Vogone talk 21:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rs chen 7754 21:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 8 is not enough.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 21:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --Ricordi samoa 21:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd prefer 85%, but meh. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Courcelles (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. 15 votes is reasonable, with the amount that RfAs are getting. Frigid Ninja 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support 15 is reasonable. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Techman224^Talk 03:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support having originally suggested this on IRC. However, I should note that in the near-ish future we may want to raise our threshold for admins as well, seeing as we currently have nearly 7,000 active users. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems good. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 04:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sounds like a good amount. Vaca tion 9 05:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tpt (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think 15 sounds reasonable at the moment but it should remain open to modifications if it turns out to be too low a value.--Mark91it's my world 08:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support IW (wikidata addict) 10:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Seems a bit high (even reducing the support votes by one would make an impact on my decision), but I am not against this rule either.--Snaevar (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems reasonable. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfectly reasonable.--Bill william compton (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LlamaAl (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Best option IMO. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wiki13 _talk 19:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per comments above. Érico Wouters ^msg 21:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 00:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Automatik (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 04:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jitrixis (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snipre (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support John F. Lewis (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mabdul (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Guerillero | Talk 05:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my rationale in above section. Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 01:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admins

Bureaucrats must be admins.

Meh This will always be a de-facto rule, not sure if it needs to be explicitly spelled out. Legoktm (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why restrict that to admins? There should always be case-by-case decisions. Vogone talk 21:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support that's what Commons and Meta have. --Rs chen 7754 21:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Vogone. Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 21:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose but they should be trusted enough to be admins, even if they aren't. --Ricordi samoa 21:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because bureaucrats can make other users administrators, they must themselves understand the role very well, and know to who to grant it. Even if this doesn't become policy, voters will de facto look for adminship.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jasper. Frigid Ninja 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this hierarchy works perfectly well at the English Wikipedia, it seems to be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jasper Deng. Plus, on it.wp also you should be an admin in order to be a 'crat. I don't know why it should be different here, since it's working. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary -- this is de facto enforced on almost every wikiproject. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support As said above 'they must themselves understand the role'. Using the definition that is snowballing above crats already have to prove they have more community support that a sysop. I do feel that if a user is not an admin an RFA and RFB should be able to be bundled into a single request to stop things getting messy. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as de facto. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If someone is interested in bureaucrat tasks but not admin ones, and can pass RFB, I see no reason to explicitly forbid this. As has been noted, it's a de facto requirement anyways, but if someone can get consensus nonetheless, more power to them! — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good arguments by both sides. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Vogone says, this should be case by case. There is no need to impose a restriction as the community will do this naturally. Vaca tion 9 05:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, makes sense. --Stryn (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think making it a formal requirement would avoid many RfPs closed as SNOW.--Mark91it's my world 08:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the tasks are completely different, there is no need to be a sysop. However it will be kind of a de-facto rule as Legoktm said. --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support bureaucrats should have sysop rights if they can give users those rights. IW (wikidata addict) 10:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think if a non-admin becomes elected for bureaucratship, they should be given admin rights at the same time. --Iste (D) 10:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? As Bene* already said the tasks are completely different. Regards, Vogone talk 11:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Each request should be decided case-by-case. There is no need for an blanket rule like this one.--Snaevar (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with Jasper. Also, this will help to avoid SNOW requests.--Bill william compton (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I have never seen a SNOW request for bureaucratship here on Wikidata filed by a non-admin. And the section for applying for bureaucratship on WD:RFP exists since November. Where is the difference if there is a SNOW RFA or a SNOW RFB? Regards, Vogone talk 17:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I fail to see why this is needed, although I realize that in practice it's unlikely that a non-admin will make 'crat. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sven Manguard (talk • contribs).
Support --Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 00:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose : not absolutely necessary. Automatik (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 04:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - must be admin in any wikimedia project. JAn Dudík (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a different proposal. This proposal is to require local adminship on Wikidata.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Vogone — Arkanosis ^✉ 23:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that some person don't want to be a sysop (maybe because they arn't attract by clean up and maintenance), but they can be attract by granting right and all that a bureaucrats have to do. It may be better to see case by case who can be are not trustable to be a bureaucrat. --Jitrixis (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better have a separation between the different positions. Snipre (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Different tasks. There is no need to limit bureaucrats to be sysop. A bureaucrats job is not to block, protect etc. They are sysop jobs. A bureaucrat does not need to have previously inherited rights. John F. Lewis (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral My original statement above puts me at an oppose however Jasper Deng puts me towards a support so for now, neutral. John F. Lewis (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to those who say the roles are technically distinct, this is actually not the case. Bureaucrats do not have the move-rootuserpages and move-subpages permissions, for instance, and those would be essential for automatically moving pages when renaming users, especially for those with userspace subpages. suppressredirect would also be helpful for any necessary page moves.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Although it is very unlikely, I don't see a reason why this has to be mandatory. Mabdul (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Guerillero | Talk 05:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as de facto. --β₁₆ - (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- as a non-admin will (almost) certainly never pass an RFB, let's just save the the trouble of having non-admins try to file an RFB and get snowed under. Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 01:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Emot - I have for a short period been crat without being a sysop. I found some problems with that, so I do not recomend it. But I do not think there is a need for a rule about something like that. If we some day find a good reason to have a crat who isn't sysop, then we do not have to change the rules. -- Lavallen (block) 18:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-sufficiency of rights

Provided that there is no consensus that bureaucrats must also be admins, the bureaucrat toolkit shall be modified to included move-subpages, suppressredirect, and tboverride.

Proposed in response to Jasper's points above. Obviously this provision will be moot if there's a consensus that 'crats must also be sysops, as I've noted. I haven't included move-rootuserpages, since currently we allow all registered users to do this. I'd also like to know what others think of including browsearchive, deletedhistory, and deletedtext rights, as these could be important in regards to RFAs. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I uderstand this proposal. Although, I'm sure we'll never have a non.admin passing an RfB. You need experience as an admin to be a crat, and although this is not written, I'm sure this is what the community does think. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I don't think a 'crat must necessarily have those permissions. Moving user pages can also be done by several admins after a user was renamed. Furthermore, I don't see why 'crats should have tboverride. override-antispoof should be sufficient in this case. But don't count this as oppose, please. (By the way, on dewiki we had had a bureaucrat without admin rights. Just the user renaming task is not so comfortable without sysop access.) Regards, Vogone talk 15:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crat roles

Standard

Bureaucrats can add the sysop, bureaucrat, bot, and translation admin flags following a successful rights request. They can rename users.

Support This seems to be the standard of what a crat does. Legoktm (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vogone talk 21:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rs chen 7754 21:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 21:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Okay. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Courcelles (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Frigid Ninja 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very standard. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 04:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. This is the norm. Vaca tion 9 05:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tpt (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mark91it's my world 08:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support IW (wikidata addict) 10:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bill william compton (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LlamaAl (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basic part of the role. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wiki13 _talk 19:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 00:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course. Automatik (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jitrixis (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snipre (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support John F. Lewis (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mabdul (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --wouldn't want to be the odd wiki out. Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 01:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation

Bureaucrats can remove bot, and translation admin flags due to voluntary resignation.

Support Legoktm (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vogone talk 21:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rs chen 7754 21:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 21:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although, why not admin too? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support everything except removing the crat flag itself. Courcelles (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In a past discussion the community wasn't too keen on the idea of -sysop by crats; that can be addressed later, in my opinion. --Rs chen 7754 22:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Frigid Ninja 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vaca tion 9 05:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tpt (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mark91it's my world 08:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support IW (wikidata addict) 10:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bill william compton (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basic part of the role. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 00:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Automatik (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jitrixis (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snipre (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support John F. Lewis (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mabdul (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it is norm on Wikimedia wikis. Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 01:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rights removal (vote)

Bureaucrats can remove bot, and translation admin flags following a rights removal request that is successful.

Support Legoktm (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vogone talk 21:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rs chen 7754 21:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 21:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Same as above, why not admin too? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support plus admin. Courcelles (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Frigid Ninja 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is essential. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tpt (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mark91it's my world 08:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support IW (wikidata addict) 10:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basic part of the role. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vaca tion 9 18:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wiki13 _talk 19:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 00:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Automatik (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jitrixis (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snipre (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support John F. Lewis (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support naturally. Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 01:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rights removal (emergency)

Bureaucrats may remove the bot or translationadmin flag in an emergency situation.

Support Legoktm (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vogone talk 21:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since it's only bot or translation admin, both flags that are no big deal. --Rs chen 7754 21:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 21:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricordi samoa 22:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Frigid Ninja 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Anyone with the ability to remove certain rights should be able to remove those rights in the event of an emergency.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Naturally someone that can giveus shouls be able to takeawayus. My only comment is that I cannot see an 'emergency' case when the bot flag would need to be removed, a block is normally always more suitable, though that doesn't mean crats should be able to :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I don't see a bot or translation admin emergency happening. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tpt (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mark91it's my world 08:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though we have to define an emergency --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as Bene* said, I do not know what an emergency situation could be for bots & TAs. Bots can be blocked in case of malfunction, if there is abuse by TAs, there is also the possibility of blocking them. IW (wikidata addict) 10:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support althrough I agree with Bene on the point that the emergency does need to be defined.--Snaevar (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for translation admins, Oppose for bots. In emergency, a bot must be blocked, not have its flag removed.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basic part of the role. Ymblanter's point is well received, although I don't think that it needs to be legislated. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support part of a crats' duties Vaca tion 9 18:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wiki13 _talk 19:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 00:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Automatik (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- But discussion must be created for this action as soon as possible. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jitrixis (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snipre (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though blocking of bots is most preferred. John F. Lewis (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mabdul (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 01:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regranting rights (1)

Rights that are voluntarily resigned under uncontroversial circumstances can be reassigned by a bureaucrat.

Regranting rights (2)

Rights that are voluntarily resigned under uncontroversial circumstances can be reassigned by a bureaucrat, as long as they still are eligible to hold them under any applicable inactivity policy.

Support Seems to be the most reasonable to me. Legoktm (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vogone talk 21:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rs chen 7754 21:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 21:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Frigid Ninja 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tpt (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mark91it's my world 08:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support IW (wikidata addict) 10:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Whereas this would make no harm in the short run, re-assigning a flag to someone who has been inactive say for five years would be dangerous since they would be totally unfamiliar with the policies. If an admin has the community trust, RfA should not be a problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you didn't read the suggestion carefully enough ("[…] as long as they still are eligible to hold them under any applicable inactivity policy."). ;-) Kind regards, Vogone talk 11:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did. An administrator loses a bit after six month of full inactivity (zero edits and zero admin log actions). If an admin has one edit and zero amin log actions every six months, they would still be eligible after five years, but I personally would have zero trust in that they are familiar with current policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikidata:Administrators#Losing_adminship the community hasn't defined inactivity, yet. An exemption can be made in this future discussion. Regards, Vogone talk 12:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason not to. Ymblanter has a point, but we just need to define inactivity. Vaca tion 9 18:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wiki13 _talk 19:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 00:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jitrixis (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support John F. Lewis (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as long as no "inactivity policy" is defined. Mabdul (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 01:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regranting rights (3)

Rights that are voluntarily resigned under uncontroversial circumstances cannot be reassigned by a bureaucrat without a fresh request for the permission approved by the usual community process.

Oppose, does not make any sense. If somebody voluntarily resigned and then passed an RFA there should be no way a crat can not reassign the rights.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this proposal needs the clause "without a fresh request for the permission" added to the end. I think they were going for "resign your mop, new RFA" not ":resign your mop, never have again, ever". Courcelles (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  With such a clause, I would support.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - So added. This wasn't my proposal, but it is apparently dead in the water without it (and I think this aligns with the original intent, too). Courcelles (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, that's what I meant. --Rs chen 7754 18:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ymblanter. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless they've been without the right for so long standards have significantly changed. Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 01:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list

A bureaucrat mailing list should be created for RTV/privacy-related issues or to draw attention to urgent matters. It should only be used for such.

Meh I know enwiki has a list, but do other wikis? I'm really not sure if there is a need, can we just have them email individual crats for now? Legoktm (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons does, and they only have 5-6 crats. --Rs chen 7754 21:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rs chen 7754 21:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Might be more effective than e-mailing a single 'crat. Vogone talk 21:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 21:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral--Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If others think it would help then go for it.. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but if it doesn't come to fruition, no biggie. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? Crats can communicate with each other privately and crats can be contacted privately. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral not sure how useful it would be.--Mark91it's my world 08:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral not sure --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not sure how useful it would be.--Snaevar (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why can such things not be discussed in the open, and by users other than bureaucrats? Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa... I think I completely missed half of the explanation there. Neutral, because I'm not sure how much it would actually be used or needed. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Vogone. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's no reason not to do it, and it could help. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sven Manguard (talk • contribs).
Neutral --Wiki13 _talk 19:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Per Snaevar commented above. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not convinced it's a good idea — Arkanosis ^✉ 23:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jitrixis (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support John F. Lewis (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Neutral - let the 'crats do a ('crat only) !vote if they need one. Mabdul (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Are there still mail-boxes, that aren't flooded? -- Lavallen (block) 18:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpations

Usurpations of accounts with no live edits are permitted.

Support Completing SUL shouldn't be prevented by unused accounts. Vogone talk 21:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rs chen 7754 21:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 21:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as in any big wiki (I think) --Ricordi samoa 22:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tho this has to be expanded later. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Courcelles (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Frigid Ninja 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, unless the user in question is already unified and has many live edits somewhere else.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tpt (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mark91it's my world 08:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support IW (wikidata addict) 10:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LlamaAl (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Straigtforward. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wiki13 _talk 19:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 00:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Automatik (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jitrixis (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snipre (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support John F. Lewis (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mabdul (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 01:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing removal discussions

Bureaucrats are tasked with closing rights removal discussions (sysop, crat) and bringing them to Meta.

Support --Rs chen 7754 21:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 22:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Logical Courcelles (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Frigid Ninja 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but again I'd like it even better if bureaucrats had the technical ability to remove sysop rights.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tpt (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I agree with Jasper Deng. --Stryn (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mark91it's my world 08:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support IW (wikidata addict) 10:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LlamaAl (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should be a basic part of the role. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wiki13 _talk 19:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ; if not who will? Automatik (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jitrixis (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support John F. Lewis (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 01:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recusal

Bureaucrats should refrain from closing rights discussions that they have participated in.

Support --Rs chen 7754 21:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 22:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support For this to work, I should add that we must have a fair number of bureaucrats.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Courcelles (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Frigid Ninja 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tpt (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, they should refrain, but don't need to make rules for it. --Stryn (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Stryn above.--Mark91it's my world 08:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support IW (wikidata addict) 10:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This should fall under WD:UCS. If a bureaucrat has supported a RfP which had 30 supporting votes and no opposes, there is no problem with them closing it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bill william compton (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LlamaAl (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Duh. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wiki13 _talk 19:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support; they must. Automatik (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snipre (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mabdul (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 01:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Emot I see no need to carve such a rule into a rock. Use Common sense instead. -- Lavallen (block) 18:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discounting votes

Bureaucrats are allowed to use discretion when closing rights requests that have been affected by canvassing (on this wiki, on other WMF wikis, or outside of Wikimedia) or socking.

Support --Rs chen 7754 21:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 22:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Courcelles (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Frigid Ninja 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with minor change to wording (adding "outside of Wikimedia" as a possible locale for canvassing); revert me if you object, but I assume the intention here wasn't to allow canvassing outside of Wikimedia. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True, it would just be harder to prove that it took place. --Rs chen 7754 04:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tpt (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, discretion is always needed. --Stryn (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mark91it's my world 08:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support IW (wikidata addict) 10:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LlamaAl (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This does not need to be legislated. Falls under "Duh" to me. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The way I see it, this explicitly gives them the right, so that there are no questions later. --Rs chen 7754 19:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wiki13 _talk 19:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mabdul (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- well sure, a !vote coming from a sock or like " Oppose, this candidate is a stupid jerk --Example" just shouldn't fly. Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 01:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming by stewards

Usually, a rename should be carried out by a bureaucrat. However, if a user requests a rename on m:SRUC on another project, and asks that the renaming steward also rename them on any other wikis where they're allowed to, the steward may rename them here, provided that there's no reason to think that the specific renaming would be controversial locally.

Proposed as a common-sense measure so users wanting a rename on multiple projects don't have to go from noticeboard to noticeboard to noticeboard. To my knowledge no project has ever passed a policy like this, but I think it's dumb that stewards shouldn't be allowed to perform a rename here in the course of their duties elsewhere simply because there's a local 'crat or two; this would be similar to our current relationship with the global sysops. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this could very well lead to a "no we won't do it, that's your jurisdiction" disputes. --Rs chen 7754 04:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support if a steward should want to rename due to m:SRUC I see no reason for them not to allowed to, naturally stewards may also request a crat on wikidata to do this but I don't feel this level of bureaucracy is needed. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that it is the SOP of the stewards to decline anything that can be done by local users. --Rs chen 7754 04:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per
This page hosts requests for a username change on a Wikimedia wiki with no active bureaucrats.
on m:SRUC. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. --Stryn (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good arguments on both sides. I think the stewards should decide that, so no need for a guideline. --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral we can't decide that here, there should be a discussion with stewards. IW (wikidata addict) 10:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not needed. The annoyance of applying for an rename on all projects can be eleminated by letting beurocrats watch the m:SURC page and rename users based on requests there in accordance to local policy.--Snaevar (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a project explicitly decides that stewards may do something (as it is proposed here), we will do requests for that. Cf. also m:Stewards_policy#Check_local_policies. Personally I think it's helpful to users to allow stewards to do uncontroversial renamings on wikis with local bureaucrats (i.e. no usurpations or so), as it saves them time chasing crats (and it also saves stewards' time to explain to users that they should ask crats. Even though m:SRUC mentions that all over, some people apparently can't read ;) ). --MF-W 23:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it's absurd to prohibit the steward to rename for global requests (it can do it more faster if he has the permission). Automatik (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per The Anonymouse commented above. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with The Anonymouse. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but strongly recommend 'crats watch the relevant pages on Meta (personally I think this is a quicker and better approach than building a global rename tool, but hey) QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per The Anonymouse. --β₁₆ - (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am starting to think that we should stop renaming users, just because somebody want to change it. I have seen to many problems relating to changed names, like missing contributions, lost edits... Abusive names can be replaced if needed, but the rest is waste of resources. SUL has existed for many years now, and I can only see a need for it on new imported projects like Wikivoyage. -- Lavallen (block) 18:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vanishing

If a user wishes to vanish from Wikidata, they may contact a bureaucrat, either in private, on the bureaucrats' noticeboard, or through the bureaucrats' mailing list (assuming the relevant proposal here passes). They will be renamed (e.g. to "Vanished user 123456789"), have any rights removed, and have their userpages deleted (generally, their user talk page should be blanked but not deleted). Vanishing is typically a one-way road, and should a vanished user return under a new account, they are advised to disclose this to the bureaucrat corps; depending on the circumstances, they may be instructed to disclose this on their userpage.

Support — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support standard. --Rs chen 7754 04:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tpt (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not sure if renaming vanished users is needed.--Snaevar (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Oppose per Snaevar Vogone talk 11:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to oppose. See my comment below. I can't support a rule which seems unnecessary and unexplainable (nobody has answered my comment) to me. Regards, Vogone talk 19:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is really needed either. It is done on very few of the 400+ active Wikimedia projects. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, vanishing should definitely be permitted, it's an important part of respecting users' personal wishes. This is standard procedure on most large wikis. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really do not see the point of this proposal. Isn't every user (except vandals) allowed to request deletion of his user page, renaming his account and removal of rights? Regards, Vogone talk 15:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vanishing is a chronically abused mechanism over on enWiki, and I do not want to bring it over to this project. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snipre (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sven Manguard. Mabdul (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Vanishing is pointless - anyone with 10 minutes to spare can work out who the vanished user used to be, it achieves very little so why bother? QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I never saw a point to this. --Guerillero | Talk 05:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would Oppose for most cases, but sometimes WD:UCS should be invoked. Legoktm (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Sven Manguard. --β₁₆ - (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportJakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 01:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Losing the crat flag

Inactivity

The crat flag will be removed with the admin flag when the admin flag is removed due to inactivity, or when the admin flag would be removed if the crat is not an admin.

Oppose since cratship is not technically tied with adminship. However the inactivity checks should be done at the same time, so if you're inactive for adminship, you're also inactive for cratship...so basically Support Legoktm (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rs chen 7754 21:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support There should be the same inactivity policy like for admins. Vogone talk 21:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added "or when the admin flag would be removed if the crat is not an admin" to cover the extra possibility. --Rs chen 7754 21:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 21:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I would oppose any extra standard for crats (like ten crat actions a year). Courcelles (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and what Courcelles said. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Frigid Ninja 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support some kind of removal after inactivity. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tpt (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mark91it's my world 08:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support IW (wikidata addict) 10:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do support having the same inactivity rules for beurocrats as with sysops, but however I do not think that they should be tied.--Snaevar (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support No point in having inactivity removals for admins but not 'crats. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LlamaAl (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 00:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Automatik (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 04:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snipre (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mabdul (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By vote

50%

The crat flag can be removed by a 50% vote in support of removing the crat flag, or 50% vote in support of removing the admin flag.

Support Vogone talk 21:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Legoktm (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rs chen 7754 21:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 21:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Courcelles (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Frigid Ninja 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tpt (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mark91it's my world 08:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support IW (wikidata addict) 10:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 50% is a bit low for me. In my opinion it should rather be either an majority of votes (51%) or 60%.--Snaevar (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support 50% like for admin is a good number. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a bureaucrat who's lost the support of half the community should probably not be a bureaucrat anymore. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LlamaAl (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Érico Wouters ^msg 21:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 00:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 04:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jitrixis (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose -- if we're gonna force 'crats to be open to recall, there should at least be clear consensus to remove the bit. Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 01:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1/3

The crat flag can be removed by a 1/3 vote in support of removing the crat flag, or 50% vote in support of removing the admin flag.

Support The crat flag will only be obtained by getting less then 20% contra votes. So we should have a lower limit for contra votes to remove the flag. I think 1/3 should be ok. A crat should have a big community support. If he has less then 2/3 support he should not be a crat. --Sk!d (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose 2/3 is still a rough consensus in favor.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1/3 is not an conseus.--Snaevar (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need a consensus for that. Automatik (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support; that's a lot if a third of voters is for the removal of flag, it should not happen. Automatik (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, even 50% is hardly consensus, let alone 33%. Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 01:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reconfirmation (1)

Bureaucrats must be reconfirmed every 2 years.

Support To make sure that an existing 'crat has still the trust of the community. Vogone talk 21:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a noticeable break from past comments I've made, but I think this is essential, as I've seen problems with tenured bureaucrats on other large wikis. --Rs chen 7754 22:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I'm opposing this for the same reasons why I opposed reconfirmation of all admins. If the community has any concerns, there's nothing to stop a vote to remove the rights.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is far easier to have an automatic confirmation than making a vote for removal. Nobody would be "guilty" if a reconfirmation does not succeed and that's why many people refrain from opening a request for removal of rights. Regards, Vogone talk 22:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel that it would be a waste of time, since I'd think most bureaucrats would be easily reconfirmed. The few for who the community has concerns can have removal discussions opened. Opening a request for removal of access is what we agreed on for adminship, I don't see why bureaucrats shouldn't be different.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 22:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel that if we lose the trust of a crat, we can open a request for removal of rights. Reconfirmations are for stewards and arbitrators :P — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This would be a waste of time. Any concerns can be addressed in a removal of rights request. Frigid Ninja 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if the request for removal of rights is a option. The crate should have a big community support so normal re election would be only a standard procedure. --Sk!d (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If no users find any concerns with a bureaucrat, it implies that the bureaucrat has the community's trust. An annual re-confirmation to merely demonstrate that is completely needless and time-consuming.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment below, Why add another layer of red tape when a crat can be removed through a vote anyway ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Rschen7754 and Vogone. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Effectively redundant with existing rights removal policy. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Oppose If the removal by 50% vote succeeds. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redundant. Tpt (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Stryn (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose reconfirmations would be a waste of time.--Mark91it's my world 08:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kjetil r (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If someone thinks that an beurocrat should lose his rights, then (s)he should open a request for removal of rights.--Snaevar (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I hate turning user rights into politics, with re-elections. We already have requests for de-bureaucratship for if the user is really doing stuff wrong. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems unnecessary, and more of a distraction than anything. Also, I'm not very comfortable with the implication here. It sounds like "you still aren't completely trusted, we have to keep checking on your support level". If a bureaucrat loses his good standing, then it's quite easy to launch a discussion for rights removal at that time. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per above. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 04:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's good to see what the community thinks after two years. Automatik (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jasper Deng — Arkanosis ^✉ 23:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reconfirmation (2)

The bureaucrat flag is to be retained except when lost under the inactivity or under a rights removal request, or by voluntary resignation.

Support This is completely standard.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jasper Frigid Ninja 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Why add another layer of red tape when a crat can be removed through a vote anyway.. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support If the ways of removal (inactivity, removal request, voluntary resignation) succeed, of course. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tpt (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nemo 07:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Iste (D) 10:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bill william compton (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LlamaAl (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 00:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 04:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jitrixis (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snipre (talk) 23:10, 8 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.

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining bureaucrats

Contents

Becoming a crat

Voting (1)

Voting (2)

Admins

Self-sufficiency of rights

Crat roles

Standard

Resignation

Rights removal (vote)

Rights removal (emergency)

Regranting rights (1)

Regranting rights (2)

Regranting rights (3)

Mailing list

Usurpations

Closing removal discussions

Recusal

Discounting votes

Renaming by stewards

Vanishing

Losing the crat flag

Inactivity

By vote

50%

1/3

Reconfirmation (1)

Reconfirmation (2)

Navigation menu

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining bureaucrats

Becoming a crat

Voting (1)

Voting (2)

Admins

Self-sufficiency of rights

Crat roles

Standard

Resignation

Rights removal (vote)

Rights removal (emergency)

Regranting rights (1)

Regranting rights (2)

Regranting rights (3)

Mailing list

Usurpations

Closing removal discussions

Recusal

Discounting votes

Renaming by stewards

Vanishing

Losing the crat flag

Inactivity

By vote

50%

1/3

Reconfirmation (1)

Reconfirmation (2)

Navigation menu

Search