Talk:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat voting survey

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Wong128hk in topic Not this again

Suggest to add question 6


@Jusjih: Should bureaucrats be also CheckUsers? Oversighters? I know that this is not fairy for some peoples such as @Jimmy Xu and Kegns:, but I'm just suggesting. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I did not consider this question needed, but feel free to add.--Jusjih (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not this again


If the bureaucrat role were something that had critical functions I could understand this to be the second or third RfC this year about this topic, but with bureaucrats being removed the ability to rename accounts, which was probably the most used function; why is this so recurrent? Most small wikis do not need a bureaucrat, the odd right request can be handled at SRP in a blink of an eye; same with removals (not to talk that 99% of granted permissions on small wikis are temporary). Wikis where administrators and bots are frequently appointed might be in need of a bureaucrat, and that means a considerable wiki size and user base. It won't be hard to identify the need of a bureaucrat on a project, and surely a request for bureaucratship on those projects will have enough participation to demonstrate that there's such a need, and also the meta rights log will help in provide such evidence. If there's no such a need, then it's just a caprice and we shouldn't be granting it. As simple as it is. —MarcoAurelio 11:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can't agree more.--J.Wong 15:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply



Doesn't this need a global MassMessage to the village pumps, since it would have a global effect? --Rschen7754 01:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Many other requests for comment also have global effects. I do not know how to send global MassMessage.--Jusjih (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply



What does that mean? Is it just for gauging opinions from which to draft a policy proposal? Or is this already a policy proposal? --MF-W 01:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Only small wikis or all Wikimedia wikis?


At the top of the RfC, there is a link to another RfC Requests for comment/Bureaucrats on small wikis which is only about Bureaucrats in small wikis, but not in bigger ones. I can't find in the description here, if the RfC is also about big wikis like enwiki, dewiki, frwiki, nlwiki, svwiki, cawiki and so on. If this should be an RfC also for changing policies in big wikis, then it should be told in the description clearly. And then there have to be notifications on all those big wikis for commenting here. For example, if the minimum percentage of support overall should get higher according to this RfC than is might be in big wikis (e.g. it's just 70 % at dewiki, 75 % or 80 % would change local rules already there) or more than 50 edits should be required for being active, then local rules are being changed here. See also #MassMessage above. Even if this might be meant only for the small wikis, those ones should all be notified. But by now, I'm not sure about what is meant here: only the small wikis or all? Voters seem also not to be clear about that, they don't name big wikis, but small ones in their votes, but I think that all wikis are meant here, not only small ones, is it? @Jusjih: Please clarify that at the top of the RfC.
And shall this be a policy about all Wikimedia wikis in the end, see one section above? Such as the policy that all admins have to remain active in the last two years (more than one edit or the like), otherwise they lose their admin rights? Those things should be clear before. --Bjarlin (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Question 5


What is the purpose and meaningfulness of question 5?:

  • "If a voter has not edited for a full year, how many months of edits before a bureaucrat voting should a voter have in order to be considered active?"

If a user has more than thousand edits in the last 5 years, but has been inactive in the last year, then the sentence makes no sense to me, because then they were not only active since 6 months or the like, but since 5 years (or more). And in question 4, it is said that they should have more than x edits in the last year, thus they can't have been inactive in the last year, if it's more than 0 edit there. Then inactive users all are inactive according to question 4 and no one considered active has not edited in the last year, so the question isn't needed. For me, the question is illogical. --Bjarlin (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Some users may have started editing a wiki less than a year ago. Question 5 asks if very new editors should have the votes considered, as some wikis like Chinese Wikipedia prohibit very new users from voting for new administrators]].--Jusjih (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    That's nonsense, eligibility of voters should only be considered in some sensitive rights such as CheckUser (or, are you asking that all bureaucrats must be at least 18 years old?). -- 00:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Return to "Requests for comment/Bureaucrat voting survey" page.