【Spirent·06.05·深圳】授时和无人机测试解决方案

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.

A majority is in favor of allowing bureaucrats to remove admin rights ( Support: 15,  Oppose: 2) --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

---

An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Additional rights for bureaucrats" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue. 百度 如果吃太多肥腻补品，反会加重损胃伤脾，影响营养吸收。

If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you!

THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.

Bureaucrats can currently grant admin rights, but cannot remove them. They must request a removal on m:SRP, and stewards remove them then. Sometimes problems appear, like this month (discussion at meta). I'd suggest that bureaucrats should be able to remove for the following reasons:

1. It would be shorter and easier: Processes that are usually completely uncontroversial have already gone through several instances.
2. The bureaucrats know the local procedures of the community and its peculiarities. Stewards, who mainly work in other communities, are not familiar with them. They have to carry out time-consuming checks when processing applications and would be relieved by the change.
3. If bureaucrats want to remove admin access for inactive admins, they can do so immediately.
4. Some other wikis, see the list here, have already changed this in the bureaucrats' permissions and, as far as I know, had a very good result.

Discussion

• Previous discussion: Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Bureaucrats'_role_in_removal_of_permissions--GZWDer (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Support I think removal of sysop rights should be done by bureaucrats in all bigger wikis --Ameisenigel (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Support per Ameisenigel --TenWhile6 11:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Support This was handled piss-poor and this proposal would help resolve some of that to prevent it happening in the future again. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree it should be possible for bureucrats on a big wiki such as Wikidata to retire inactive admins. However due to the proposal not making it clear in which circumstances bureucrats can use this permission I can't support the proposal since it basically might give blanket permissions depending on whether Wikidata:Administrators which describes how administrator permissions are removed is actually ratified as a policy. Looking over old related votes I found: Wikidata:Requests for comment/Bureaucrats' role in removal of permissions and Wikidata:Requests for comment/Reforming administrator inactivity criteria. Infrastruktur (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Infrastruktur: Don't you think that WD:A#Losing adminship is a policy? --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 18:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I could definitely be missing old votes, so that is still an open question. Parts of it is certainly voted over such as the inactivity rules for admins, so that part is ratified. If parts of it have never been put to a vote then it is more of a nonbinding guideline. There have been borrowing of rules from english wikipedia that is followed and silently agreed upon, but may not have been formally put through a vote.

With regards to the proposal, the reason I opposed it was because the wording in the original proposal could be understood to grant bureucrats the power to remove administrator permissions with no restrictions and for no particular reason. Even if bureucrats are bound by WD:A, it says absolutely nothing about that permission removals _must_ be one of those listed which is quite a large loophole.

Allow some time for discussions, then make a reworded proposal based on the discussion for a new vote IMO. Infrastruktur (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not think that we would actually change or create policies with this RfC. It is basically about changing the wiki configuration and that requires some kind of discussion (per m:Requesting wiki configuration changes). --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Support. ToadetteEdit (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose Given previous removal of admin rights for reasons of "Your activity was so much that we didn't want to engage in the work of checking whether you are actually active enough to to fulfill the explicit criteria for keeping your admin rights", I don't think we should make it even easier and increase the amount of right removal. If the current process is changed it should not be changed into a way that makes it easier to lose admins. It would be much better to have a process where the person who might lose rights gets first encouraged to get active again. ChristianKl ??? 12:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Support Although the opportunity for inactive administrators to be reinstated probably should be given by the local community, it only complicates things needlessly to take things in Wikidata to the outside. --Tmv (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Support per my previous comments on this topic, alternatively that we notify inactive admins (about a week or so in advance) prior to right removal. EPIC (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Support but can we bundle in inactivity warnings for admins with this? Part of the problem is that our inactivity policy is super rigid, yoinking the access from anyone without warning. I do like that adminship is easy come, easy go (I think it helps prevent it from becoming a big deal), but not all of our admins are primarily active here and sometimes they forget or life gets in the way. I think they still have something to add. But in response to this proposal, no issues with 'crats removing the sysop bit locally. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Support Removing administrator permissions from inactive users is an established policy, and this policy is not changed here. Midleading (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Support In most big wikis, bureaucrats have the ability to desysops, I don't think it should be different here. --Fralambert (talk) 11:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Support I think removal of sysop flags is something we can handle locally as our community is big and strong enough, and the bureaucrat position is the most logical position to do so. --Lymantria (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Support per Ameisenigel --Emu (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Support I consider our bureaucrats can handle this locally with no issues. Also, I agree with Ajraddatz regarding inactivity warnings – some advance notice would be the right thing to do IMO. –FlyingAce^?hello 22:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Support I suspect that making local editors responsible for flipping the bit would make it more likely local policies are followed. HouseBlaster (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Support We can do it locally.--S8321414 (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
•  Strong support fewer bureaucracy, smarter life :) --Estopedist1 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

---

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