Wikidata talk:Requests for permissions/archive/2012

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

IPs voting

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So an IP editor by the name of Ice1993, whom as far as I can tell is not registered on any project and has no edits outside of Wikidata:Requests for permissions, went through and supported about half of the current RfA candidates. His/her votes were quickly struck out by a logged in user.

Ignoring that one of the candidates he supported was me (if it makes anyone feel better, we can keep his support for me struck out if we decide to unstrike the rest), how should we handle IP votes on this project? I've only ever seen IP votes dealt with on English Wikipedia, where IPs are allowed to comment, but not formally vote. However Wikidata isn't EnWiki, and so we should decide for ourselves the eligibility rules for RfA voting. Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If an IP has a valid point that they want to make, why stop them? I have never understood why we should not allow IPs to vote. And don't talk to me about sockpuppets, etc - that can just as easily happen with accounts >.> Ajraddatz (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Temporarily close this?

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As it is, only global sysops and stewards are using tools here. I suggest that we closing this page until the community decides what it wants to do with these rights, especially given the lack of widespread commenting on all of the requests. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that a lot of people on that page, SarahStierch, Tpt, Romaine, Merlissimo, Sebleouf, Raymond, etc. have massive amounts of support for such a new project, so I certainly disagree with your comment that there isn't widespread commenting. 20 support votes is a well supported candidate over at Commons, which is a much older larger, and well established project. It's pretty clear who has significant support. We can decide how to build the limits concurrently, and I do agree that we should make that decision sooner rather than later, but I see no reason to stop the process. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it has gotten a lot better than what I remembered. Still, it makes sense to me to delay these requests until there are substantial enough contributions to draw from here, since they are requesting adminship here. Either way, though, I suppose that both these requests and the forum on how we want to work this can run concurrently. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Subpages

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I've started moving RfAs into subpages, because this page is getting monstrously large, and even if we archive things, the archives are going to be monstrously large. Every other large project uses subpages for a reason, so I figured it would be a non-controversial change to make. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That indeed sounds like a good idea, yes - Hoo man (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Support sounds good. Restu²⁰ 21:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I didn't think it was going to be an issue, but I waited on doing all of the October 31 and November ones until I saw some support. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Late

Support I think. Yes, old requests can be moved to subpages, and new requests should probably be created now in subpages. May I tweak the page to add a nice preloading box for that? — MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Stewards

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I have asked stewards to check out those requests that are more than 7 days old. See meta:Steward_requests/Permissions#Many_users_at_Wikidata This, that and the other (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Mh I can anything except mine but actually I'd prefer to do nothing by myself. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Technical info: This wiki has bureaucrats. Stewards normally do not act on wikis with bureaucrats.
— Danny B. 13:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Those bureaucrats are staff, so they aren't allowed to take any actions. They have the rights in absence of a local staff group. Ajraddatz (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

So we should obviously have local staff user group as well.
— Danny B. 13:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking care of this. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Bot policy?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I believe that we need to create a bot policy relatively soon, as we currently don't have one. After looking at the global bot policy, I believe that we can liberally cut and paste from it, but that it does not work for our purposes, because the tasks it envisions bots doing are not necessarily the ones we need done. Additionally, whatever we decide, I believe that we should disallow automatic approval and also disallow global bots. Our project is sufficiently different from other WMF holdings, and has sufficiently large community participation, to justify this. Thoughts? This is also Sven Manguard 16:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No global bots are necessary, they are limited to managing interwiki links (and double redirects) anyway per the global m:Bot policy - and in order to get rid of these bots, we have Wikidata ;) Similar for automatic approval. --MF-Warburg (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Critera

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I see some requests for adminship have been granted and others not. What are the deciding factors? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As the steward who granted the first batch I've posted my reasoning for the promotions at m:SRP. However I'll post it here: While the project decides whether 8 votes is enough for adminship, I've gone ahead and flagged the editors whose RfAs were opened for at least a week or more, had ten or more than ten support votes and a 75% support or higher, so this promotion oughtn't be controversial. The other RFAs are not declined and will be processed soon by us. Regards. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Superzerocool meets those criteira, but it seems he was skipped over. This is likely because the first two supports are not bolded. This is also Sven Manguard 18:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I saw those two supports. However the #10 vote is mine ;-) -- I'll ask a steward to flag him. Regards. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Oops. This is also Sven Manguard 18:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Thank you for explaining. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Archives

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I've set an archive tree at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Archives.

Should we leave requests up for 24-48 hours before archiving or should we archive immediately?

Also, does anyone have a problem with my link tree?

Sven Manguard Wha? 23:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem with the link tree, and let's wait another 48 hours to move the closed requests. :) --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 00:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Instead of managing lists like Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Archives, it would be more convenient to create a category (maybe under Category:Archived requests) and to move each closed request from Category:Requests for permissions to this category.

--Eric-92 (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of doing that as well, but we should not leave out the people that don't know how to go category fishing. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

OK - Category:Archived requests for permissions is created, and Template:Discussion bottom is modified to put the relevant pages in this category. --Eric-92 (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In the main page, we should link the closed requests instead of including them ? It would then load faster (and avoid being present in the new category).

--Eric-92 (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

We would have a huge list. The archives make so much more sense. --Guerillero | Talk 03:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree : so let's remove the whole section Requests for adminship Accepted and put some link to the proper page. --Eric-92 (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)