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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
  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)
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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
      • (Note: I clarified that w/ an IRC discussion w/ MF-Warburg.)--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Completely agree with Ymblanter (talkcontribslogs). --Zanka (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • I agree Ymblanter (talkcontribslogs)'s opinion, not now. --Sotiale (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with Ymblanter. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)

    • WFC makes a good point here. However, admins must still judge deletions, right?--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Of course, admins will always have control over the technical abilities that they are trusted with. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
        • 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)

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)


  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer.
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Stryn (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg 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)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Sounds good. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Crats have more responsibilities than Admins. This is a good start. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    1 week of discussion is too short, 2 weeks would be better. --Eric-92 (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    Nah. This is what almost all wikis do. 2 weeks is too long.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 1 week of discussion with at least 80% agrees from minimum 10 8 voters. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rschen7754 18:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support Conny (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC).
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Techman224Talk 00:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg 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)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg 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)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support Regards, — Moe Epsilon 15:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support IW 17:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  15. Symbol support vote.svg Support --LlamaAl (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  16. Symbol support vote.svg 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)
  17. Symbol support vote.svg Support, although at least eight supports might be a bit too low.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  01:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    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)
  18. Symbol support vote.svg 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)
  19. Symbol support vote.svg 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)


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

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)
No prerequisites please, let the community decide on a case-by-case basis. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
+1 case by case - only if necessary. Conny (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC).
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)
I concur with what Sven said — Arkanosis 13:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Permanent adminship and RfBs[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)
Common sense is what's supposed to govern wikis.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd be fine with keeping the requests open until we've reached decisions here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • Timeline is here (we're doing 5 day, I think). Sven Manguard Wha? 19:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
      • In that case their reconfirmations should be 5 days before the initial wave in order to have all 'crats available for the reconfirmation process.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
        • What you propose sound unnecessarily complicated. Closing the RfBs as normal would let us have actual local bureaucrats to deal with the reconfirmations, as well as take a few off of the list of needing to confirm. Additionally, the bureaucrats could start dealing with bot requests now. I don't see the benefit of keeping the requests open for over a month, only to put the same candidates through a parallel process. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Hey, if you can get enough people to support the "Permanent adminship and RfBs" thread above, I'd be fine with it. I just don't want to have it seem like 'crats are coming in under a cloud. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
    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)
  • 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)

    • Although it would've been proper to test for it first, consensus can change.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

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

Do we have a need for bureaucrats?[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)

I have commented out this section for the given reasons. -- Bene* talk 10:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
✓ 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)
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 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)
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)

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)

WD:RFC. --Rschen7754 20:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)