Wikidata:Requests for permissions/RFB/2017

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Successful requests for bureaucrat

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.

Closed as successful--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Lymantria

Vote
RfP scheduled to end at 8 June 2017 19:18 (UTC)

Dear colleagues,

I would like to nominate Lymantria for bureaucrat. Lymantria is an active member of our community since 2013. He has made 850.000 edits and 40.000 admin actions (2014-). As you can see from his contributions he has a wide range of experience, is thoughtful, friendly, and active. Lymantria has contributed to Wikimedia projects for 10 years, and has over a million global edits. He is admin (2008-) and former bureaucrat (2010-2013) [1] on the Dutch Wikipedia, and admin on Wikimedia Commons (2011-).

The last bureaucrat to step down was Bene* in september 2016 and we currently have 2 bureaucrats. I believe Lymantria would make a great addition to this team. I have worked with Lymantria for nearly 10 years now, and can say he is a pleasure to work with. As such, I would like to recommend Lymantria as bureaucrat for your consideration.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Taketa, for your kind words. I accept the nomination. Lymantria (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Votes

  1.  Support - As nominator - Taketa (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  2.  Support - Edoderoo (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC) - I know Lymantria from nl-wiki, he will indeed be a good addition!
  3.  Support --Succu (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  4.  Support MisterSynergy (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  5.  Support --Rschen7754 00:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  6.  Support eurodyne (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  7.  Support Brya (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  8.  Support --Epìdosis 10:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  9.  Support A bureaucrat is definitely needed and I cannot see any reason to oppose --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  10.  Support thanks for being willing to help! ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  11.  Support ChristianKl (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  12.  Support, The work is very good. MechQuester (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  13.  Support - outstanding contributor - Jura1 20:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  14.  Support - we need active bureaucrats and possibly admins. I don't have a reason to vote against. d1g (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  15.  Support − Pintoch (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  16.  Support Mahir256 (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  17.  Support - PKM (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  18.  Support If there's a will, I'm happy to support this. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  19.  Support --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  20.  Support - Nikki (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  21.  Support, not that my vote changes things. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  22.  Support Fills a need here. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  23.  Stöder -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  24.  Support --ValterVB (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  25.  Support -- Nikosguard talk 08:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  26.  Support Of course. I'm glad I'm still on time. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 18:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  27.  Support --NatigKrolik (contributions • talk) 10:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  28.  Support —Jc86035 (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  29.  Support We should have more than just two bureaucrats.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  30.  Support Rzuwig► 19:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • ...
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Unsuccessful requests for bureaucrat

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.

 Not done, insufficient support (12/3/1 | 80%). --Vogone (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Romaine

Vote
RfP scheduled to end at 9 January 2017 21:38 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate Romaine for bureaucratship. Romaine has been an administrator on Wikidata since November 2012, and is one of the most active editors here with more than 600,000 edits. Romaine also has experience as a bureaucrat on several other projects, and is immensely qualified for the role. --Yair rand (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: I accept. I am happy to help out where I can. Romaine (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Votes

  1.  Support. --Yair rand (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  2.  Support We could use a couple more 'crats, even if the workload isn't too high. Thanks for volunteering. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  3.  Support. --Edgars2007 (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  4.  Support —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  5.  Preliminary support No concerns for now. Can be trusted with the extra tools. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 15:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  6.  Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  7.  Oppose Has already burea-rights on nl.wikt/voy/quote and be.wikimedia so he better concentrate on doing his job there good. Also with 14 times sysop global he has enough to do and doesn’t need any more rights. So better do a few jobs well than doing that much jobs worse. – K​P​F​C​ 💬 18:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  8.  Support --Rschen7754 01:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  9.  Support --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  10.  Support dedicated. MechQuester (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  11.  Support --Rzuwig► 21:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  12.  Support --NatigKrolik (contributions • talk) 22:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  13.  Oppose - Brya (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC) If a bureaucrat is going to deal with bots, he had better understand and subscribe the bot policy. This user does not.
  14.  Oppose, I don't feel the active connection with the Wikidata community. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  15.  Support Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  16.  Neutral I'd like bureaucrats to be more active, but I wouldn't have an issue if he were promoted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • That main activity of bureaucrats at Wikidata is to take care of bot requests. What is your experience with bots and bot requests?
    --- Jura 14:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I use a bot myself on multiple wikis since 2009. Bots are good tools to perform tasks that would be extremely tedious to do manually. On other wikis I have judged bot requests as those have to meet the guidelines and minimal standards for editing, certainly as bots operate on a large scale. Working on a large scale means that a small mistake can result in a large number of errors. To avoid errors, precise working is needed, as well as that responsibility must be taken if something goes wrong (read: must be fixed). Romaine (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Do you have any related experience on Wikidata?
      --- Jura 22:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I work with bot tools to import data to items from multiple sources. So far I have only once in a while reviewed bot requests, but as non-bureaucrat I left it for what it was as the arguments given were to my opinion sufficient. Romaine (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
        • I couldn't find your bot account. Can you provide a link?
          --- Jura 07:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
          • I am sorry if I was unclear, I have not stated I have a bot account on this wiki, I said I use bot tools. Bot tools I have used are Autlist en Quick statements. I use them for small batches. An requirement for a bot account is that it must be able to set a maximum. With these tools I have not found the option to set such requirement and thus not used a bot account. (In case it is wished that the usage of these tools happens through a bot account, the bot policy is then inconsistent.) Romaine (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment @K​P​F​C​: I am sorry if I would disappoint you, but the wikis you refer to are not like the English Wikipedia or the German Wikipedia where there is a large community with a lot of things to deal with. The wikis you refer to are low activity wikis, if there are five bureaucrat requests in a year we had an extremely busy year. I am 100% sure that between those few requests I also find time for Wikidata. Second I would like to point out that my role on the smaller Dutch language wikis is mostly maintenance, as I appear to be the only one taking up the role of the basic maintenance there. This role is only possible if someone can edit the MediaWiki namespace and the protected templates. And on some of these wikis you get these buttons almost automatically if you do something. To me it sounds like an assumption you know those wikis and how much work that takes, but I have never seen you there. Again I am sorry, but having buttons does mean nothing more that the community does trust someone in doing the tasks well, it is not rocket science. I think it is a very bad situation if people make having buttons more then it actually is. Further I do not care if I have or have not the buttons to do things. I am asked by Yair rand if I want to do this task. I am happy to help out, and I leave up to others to decide, but I do think deciding on this must be based on facts and not on fictional assumptions. Thank you. Romaine (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Romaine: Other than the open question above, how would you summarize your use of admin tools at Wikidata in 2016? How do you think it can give us guidance about your use of bureaucrat tools?
    --- Jura 07:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Unless holidays or being on the road for work/meetings, I am active on Wikidata multiple times in a week. When I am active I usually check once with a session if there are any open requests for deletion and messages on the admin board. I almost daily check for new messages on my talk pages + someone mentioning my user name. In 2017 I am less on the road as the project Wiki Loves Art has finished. However we are trying to get more data from museums on Wikidata. Romaine (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
      • So essentially your adminship in 2016 is limited to checking daily your talk page and you'd do the same as a bureaucrat in 2017?
        --- Jura 09:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
        • That is I think a too much simplification of what I do with leaving too many things out. You asked me for a summary. A summary is already the simplification, If you then minimise a summary, too many things are left out. Your latest question is a twofold question, the second part of the question can't be answered as the first part of the question is already not true and to be answered with no. Romaine (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
          • I'm trying to figure out is meant with "one of the most active editors" and "immensely qualified" in the nomination. As you didn't make any statement yourself, we just have to guess .. or ask you. To merely answer requests on your talk page, adminship isn't needed. Here is your deletion log for 2016. It looks reasonable, but not particularly active. Obviously, without a deletion spree twice a year, there is a risk of loosing adminship for inactivity. I don't think you did any rights requests on Wikidata (which would be a good experience for bureaucrats). You didn't comment on anything in Wikidata namespace in 2016, but "we had a pie" [2]. You haven't created any properties ever. [3]. Did I miss any significant experience?
            --- Jura 10:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Well, it are not my words, and I do prefer to leave it to others how they would describe me. And you sure can ask me, I am happy to answer, but I am not happy how certain questions are framed. But if I have to guess (as you should clarify the words of the writer by asking the writer), I guess it has something to do that most of the work I do on Wikidata is manual, by creating items, adding statements, etc to make sure all articles on the Dutch Wikipedia have the minimal statements as I defined on w:nl:Wikipedia:Wikidata. Further I have actively promoted Wikidata to the Dutch community to make sure that all the articles written get the articles connected on Wikidata and statements added. And further a lot more. In 2016 I have been practically away for 4 months spread over the year, as well as other personal circumstances which made me not being able to do anything. So with that in mind I am happy with what I have done. But thank you for reminding me that I am a bit late in providing the yearly translations in the MediaWiki namespace. And again, minimising is a really strong characteristic of yours, be careful with it. And what I tried to indicate is that if something relevant happens for me, I follow it through notifications and through noticeboards. Ans yes, I like to minimise contributions to the Wikidata namespace to a minimum as chatting around happens already too often, and I only like to contribute there only if I think my message is really helping. On Wikidata I am active because I find it fun to help free knowledge as well as to help people. Seeing the request on my talk page and seeing the people above, they like me to help out in this part of Wikidata as well, and I am happy to do so, as I am asked to. Thank you. Romaine (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
              • The question isn't really about your general level of participation at Wikidata, just about the specifics of the role you want to fill. As it's primarily bot related, some experience in the field would be good.
                --- Jura 23:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment In 2008 Brya and I had a conflict on the Dutch Wikipedia, including multiple other users. It is apparently still her yearly tradition to throw it up everywhere she can in every year since then. I do not want to import conflicts, neither keeping it alive. Romaine (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    His attitude to WMF bot policy is quite relevant. User:Romaine has the habit of using his bot to make massive changes, project wide, to make all pages conform to his idiosyncratic standards, ignoring any and all protests from the users who are actually writing those pages. A real reign of terror, kept alive by user:Romaine. He does not understand bot policy, and feels that an edit is only controversial if a majority, or near-majority of users is opposed. No discussion is possible: at best there follows a lengthy exposition that if all users were to exactly follow user:Romaine's standards of how pages should look, this would mean there is great collaboration. - Brya (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    As user:Romaine pointed out, I was not the only who encountered these problems; there were several other users (on separate, unrelated occasions) with the same experience. - Brya (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    You are now describing the situation right. Four people have corrected articles you wrote according to the conventions on the Dutch Wikipedia, conventions you did not accept. If this kind of problems occur in articles, it is still common to change this to how the conventions describe this and many users change it to the right format. Also you did not raise start a discussion or a vote to change the conventions, but instead you keep attacking me. If anyone wishes I can show the pages concerned, even while Brya tried to hide it in the history of her talk page. Romaine (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
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/RFB/2017&oldid=990179538"