Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/Jasper Deng

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is not heading anywhere, so withdrawn.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Deng[edit]

Vote
RfP scheduled to end at 10 January 2013 17:17 (UTC)

I have been an administrator of Wikidata for some time. In the meantime I have helped clear up what little vandalism and spam there is, and have helped craft a few policies. I also helped with interface messages, helping to customize them to suite the project's purposes.

As a bureaucrat, I hope to mainly handle user rename requests. For handling adminship discussions, I plan to approve based on the policy of 8 minimum supports with 75% minimum support; how I would handle bureaucratship requests is not completely certain because of ongoing discussion at Wikidata talk:Bureaucrats#Bureaucrat support requirements and other policy, but if that discussion does not conclude before I evaluate a bureaucratship request, I would stay on the safe side and approve with at least 80% support and 8 minimum supports, deferring to other bureaucrats for 75%-80%, and closing as unsuccessful if <70%.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addition concerning translation administrators: I plan to give any admin this bit on request provided they have at least one reason to get it. Non-admins requesting the bit should be subjected to common-sense consensus rules, as we have no hard requirements. Those who do not list themselves as knowing at least one other language are expected by me to provide stronger rationales.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addition concerning bots and being involved: I only am sufficiently proficient in Java and PHP, so I can only help on a technical basis for bots written in those languages. What I would look for when granting the bot flag is support from a decent (~9) number of people without any opposition, and if there is opposition, I would evaluate whether the concerns are serious enough to prevent smooth operation of the wiki with that bot, and if they are, I would see how well they have been addressed. I would also look at the quality of the test edits the bot makes as a method for checking bugs. If I am sure the bot merits approval then, I would assign the flag. Otherwise, I would either defer to another bureaucrat or wait for further discussion. Under no circumstances would I close a discussion of any kind where I made any !vote, started the discussion, and/or was otherwise sufficiently involved that I would have a conflict of interest. --Jasper Deng (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  1.  Oppose this vote isn't against the candidate, it's against having bureaucrats for now. IMHO it's far too early to elect local 'crats and there would be absolutely not much to do for them. Regards, Vogone (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support Yes, you are definitely going to be an good beurocrat. There are going to be more bot-flag requests than user rename requests though.--Snaevar (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 18:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support --I'm not particularly concerned on your programming ability, a bureaucrats' duty with bots is to get the job description of the bot and checking the test edits to see if the bot is operating properly. Techman224Talk 03:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support --Wiki13 talk 09:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Oppose There is little need, as Vogone said. Ebe123 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support Same reason as Sven. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support --Raoli (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support --Iste (D) 16:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose - In spite of the project existing less than 2 weeks, the user started asking for the project to have bureaucrats for a set of reasons, some of them wrong. In that very discussion the consensus was that for now no bureucrats were needed. Now not only we have 3 RfBs against that consensus, but have proposals to enlarge their "powers" to allow removing of admin rights and others. This is not serious, really. We can't have a discussion saying one thing and a week later do otherwise... For consistency I vote against. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't one week later, it's more like 2 weeks. On a new project like this, consensus can change.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Oppose good work, but just like Vogone, I see no need for bureaucrats atm. Lukas²³ talk in German Contribs 17:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose per the reasons I gave in Sven's candidacy. —WFC— 17:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Oppose, per Vogone. --Yair rand (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • ...
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bureaucrat/Jasper_Deng&oldid=7132182"