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.
Sufficient time has passed here that I am going to close this proposal, despite the somewhat limited discussion.
Proposal 1 received no objections and should be implemented.
Proposal 2 (the status quo) is rejected; the consensus now as expressed in Proposal 1 is that property creators do have a responsibility to participate in the property creation process and may lose that privilege through an assessment process.
Proposal 3 regarding maintaining a list of property creators received no objections and is supported, however the precise mechanism was not specified. Wikidata:WikiProject Properties exists and perhaps could be used for this purposes, or another mechanism could be employed; the administrators should take up exactly how this will be handled.
Regarding Proposal 4, to change "should" to "must" regarding proposals and creation: the one objection preferred additional wording; however the statement on "obviously noncontroversial" properties is redundant to the requirement for consensus, and it is not a huge burden to require an explicit proposal even if the idea came up on WD:PFD. So I would say this proposal is supported by consensus as originally worded. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Clarifying rights and responsibilities of Property Creators" 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!
The admission of an user in the Property Creators group should come together with rights and responsibilities. This RfC tries to define which rights and responsibilities are those, and how neglecting the responsibilities affects belonging to the Property Creators group.
Proposal 1: Right to create properties on consensus, responsibility to participateEdit
With this proposal the Property Creator is allowed to create any property when considering that there is a reasonable consensus. This right comes together with the responsibility to participate, understood as creating or commenting on property proposals. The participation or lack thereof is self-assessed on request of any community member. If the Property Creator considers that they neglected their responsibilities in the last year, that implies losing their right.
Support I consider that this option is flexible enough to accommodate most cases. It doesn't impose any criteria other than the self-assessment of the Property Creator, and it offers a time frame of a year to show that they care about the property creation process.--Micru (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Question How would self-assessment work in practice? How would User A go about making such a request of User B and how would User B need to respond? How would User B's response or non-response be used to determine whether or not they lose their property creator rights? Josh Baumgartner (
talk) 16:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It can be as simple as a message on the user talk page: "hey X, are you still involved in the property creation process? If not, do you still want to have the right and the responsibility to be property creator?" And depending on the answer the admins can proceed. If they do not react, I do not have any specific answer, do you have any proposal?--Micru (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Support good idea, let's eat our Wikidata chicken by this way. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I consider it unfair towards the Property Creators who take responsibilities like commenting on property proposals.--Micru (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
This is not the status quo. Property creators do have responsibilities as laid out in WD:PTC. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you please explain which responsibilities are laid out in WD:PTC?--Micru (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Micru, we can do 1, 2, 4 but no this 2 please anymore. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Proposal 3: Identify highly active members to respond to property requestsEdit
Build a contact list of property creators and admins (who can also create properties) who are willing to be responsive to property-related requests to contribute to Property Proposal discussions, close discussions which have reached consensus, and create properties. This list can be contacted by any member of the community who notes that any of these activities are being neglected on a property proposal. This list will be fully voluntary, and if one is no longer actively responsive to requests, they may be removed from said list. Removal from the contact list would not otherwise affect one's holding of property creator rights.
Support This achieves the objectives of providing a limited group of users who can be relied upon to provide timely support to the property proposal and creation process without adding unnecessary burdens on all property creators. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Now that you mention this, it occurred to me that each WikiProject should have their own property creators. That way when pinging the participants of a Wikiproject, the property creators of that WikiProject can react. How do you see it?--Micru (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Neutral We don't need a policy or RFC to do this, you can just do it. --Rschen7754 01:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Per community consensus, new properties should not be created without a proposal/discussion on Wikidata:Property proposal. Property creators should not create new properties unless consensus exists and must not create properties they have suggested themselves.
As I think our current consensus is that properties should never be created without proposal/discussion, I think we should change the policy to make that clear:
New properties must not be created without a proposal/discussion on Wikidata:Property proposal. Property creators must not create new properties unless consensus exists and must not create properties they have suggested themselves.
Support as proposer. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Support It is already standard practice, so ok, let's do it official.--Micru (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
OpposeWikidata:Property proposal is not the only place that property can be created. WD:PFD can also generate new properties (e.g. changing datatype). In addition, I don't think we should exclude obviously noncontroversial cases (e.g. sandbox property for a new datatype).--GZWDer (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@GZWDer: Then we can add that to the text: "Properties can be created after a successful property deletion request, for instance to change a datatype, or in obviously noncontroversial cases (e.g. sandbox property for a new datatype)".--Micru (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Support to answer what GZWDer concerned, "WD:PFD can also generate new properties (e.g. changing datatype).", this is really shame, request something to be deleted is just to be deleted, not ask something to be re-created, we should in the future first create a same name new property under new datatype, then delete the old one. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Neutral I don't know that this changes anything. --Rschen7754 17:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.