Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining administrators

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.

Archived, see Wikidata:Project chat for a summary of what has come out of this. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

From various discussions, it is clear that we need to define the role of administrators within Wikidata. I've made this page to best reflect the current attitudes and established practices of the community. With that introduction over, I've made this into a few main sections, so that we can all get on the same page here. This isn't a vote - this is just a discussion. If you think that a section looks good, please make a small point of it in the appropriate discussion section. What I hope will come out of this is a big, nice proposal which we can all agree on.

Feel free to create more sections as required. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Admins can delete an item when: (Referring to the Q## pages)

• The item does not meet the notability requirements.
• The item is clearly vandalism.
• The item is a duplicate of another item, after merging all interwiki links to the remaining item.
• Blank items.
• Any other common-sense deletion which I have missed here.

Admins can delete other pages when:

• The page is clearly vandalism.
• There is consensus to delete the page, either on the page's talk page or on WD:RFD. (Yes, this means that a section on WD:RFD could turn into a discussion. This already happens in practice.)
• A user requests a deletion within his own user namespace.
• Any other common-sense reason, MW pages becoming obsolete, etc.

Blocking

Admins can block users or IP addresses:

• To prevent local abuse where a pattern of local abuse has been established.
• When consensus to block a user or IP has been developed on a discussion page. (Most likely WD:AN)
• Admins should not be blocking accounts for actions elsewhere, only to prevent abuse on Wikidata. Accounts which globally abuse their right to edit should be globally locked, not locally blocked.
  • If an account which does have a history of global abuse continues that abuse here in any way, they should be blocked.
• If any block or unblock is controversial, the status-quo should be restored and discussion should commense on which course of action to take.

User rights

• Admins can assign the autopatrolled right to users who have shown through edits on Wikidata that they can create and edit items within the established policies here.
• Admins can assign the IPBE group to those who need it, at the discretion of the admin.

Editing the MediaWiki interface

Admins can edit the MediaWiki interface to repair outdated messages, or to implement consensus developed on a discussion page. I think that common sense should be the main consideration here.

Page protections

Admins will protect pages for short amounts of time to prevent vandalism or spam which repeatedly occurs on them. This action should generally be done after a pattern of vandalism or spam can already be seen in the page's history, but for high-use pages such as the main page it can be done without such history.

Revision deletion

Admins can delete revisions or log entries when:

• They reveal private info, and are waiting to be oversighted
• They contain personal information
• They contain a violation of copyright
• Libellous content

Rollback

Admins and Global rollbackers can use the rollback button to revert obvious vandalism or spam. Any other reverts should use the undo button and explain why.

• Feel free to add points as you see fit - I might have missed something. If you do add a point which others feel controversial, a discussion on it can be held here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Protection should probably be considered. --Rschen7754 20:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletion - Items: "The item is a duplicate of another item." I would add to this rule that the links (content) should be merged, i.e. remove the iw-links from the item that is being proposed for deletion and add them to the duplicated item. This rule should be temporary, as it would be better to merge duplicated items once administrators have that option.
• Blocking: "To prevent local abuse where a pattern of local or global abuse has been established." I would remove "global abuse" from this sentance as it contradicts with the following rule:

"Admins should not be blocking accounts for actions elsewhere, only to prevent abuse on Wikidata. Accounts which globally abuse their right to edit should be globally locked, not locally blocked."

• We might need rules about AbuseFilter too, althrough that could wait.--Snaevar (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Revision deletion too... --Rschen7754 20:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for pointing those two out. I rarely ever protect pages, and never delete revisions, so I didn't even think about those. Used a common-sense policy for protection (feel free to change if you'd like), and tried to use the common parts of other project's revdel policies. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, rollback is technically an admin action here, since there is no separate rollback right. In regards to the local/global abuse policy, I rather like Simple English Wikipedia's simple:WP:ONESTRIKE - an editor gets less leeway if they have a demonstrated pattern of cross-wiki abuse, but they still have to do something bad on Wikidata. --Rschen7754 22:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Both good points. I consider too much to just be common sense and forget to write it down... added a line similar to simple's policy, and added something which should guide future block/unblock controversies. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I added Global rollbackers as they can rollback edits here. Techman224^Talk 02:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Revision deletion should be covered allready with meta:Oversight policy, as it is an Wikimedia Foundation policy. With that being said, I have no problems with an wikidata specific policy for revision deletion.--Snaevar (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Pretty sure this covers everything. --Rschen7754 02:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• We do need a deletion policy for non-Q-sites. E.g. to discuss one week (if it is no vandalism). --Sk!d (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support with a caveat that common sense can override this policy --Guerillero | Talk 21:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  In other words, do you want this to be an official guideline, like on commons? Techman224^Talk 23:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd personally love a common sense policy. On some project I've been on, something at Wikidata:Use common sense would work. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  As a general statement, we should only be giving the mop to people who we think are rational, sane individuals, and we should therefore be able to trust their judgement on cases that don't fit 'quite within the lines'. At the end of the day, any admin action that can't be justified when questioned is probably a bad admin action, and that little bit of wisdom gives us more protection that enumerated policies will. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support with Guerillero's caveat Sven Manguard Wha? 16:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Sven Manguard's comment - we should be able to override rules when they contradict with their spirit.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support whith Sk!d's suggestion.--Snaevar (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support it seems that the list contains the most important things. --Stryn (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support with Guerillero's caveat and with Sk!d suggestion. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 18:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In line with Sk!d's suggestion, I've created a page for the deletion policy. I'm not sure where discussion should take place, so if I could beg your attention at Wikidata_talk:Deletion_policy it would be most appreciated :-) Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support, with the reminder that a common sense approach is one that would commonly seen as the sensible thing to do. —WFC— 16:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have already established how to become an admin, and the majority of people here feel that adminship should be easy to get, and easy to lose. This means that adminship is no big deal, since anyone can be one, but anyone can cease to be one if they start turning it into something more than what it should be - just a few extra rights for those who need them.

Administrators should always be accountable to the community, and as such, I propose something which might sound a bit crazy: An admin should be able to pass an RfA at any time. As such, if a user starts a vote for removal of adminship on WD:RFP, the admin in question should require 75% support to retain the tools (75% opposed to the desysopping vote). This will create a clear desysopping procedure which requires no RfC, no long discussions, just a simple second RfA. These requests for removal of adminship would normally last 1-2 weeks, but can be speedy-closed if it is clear that there will be consensus to keep the tools.

Per my comment below, changing this to a request for removal of adminship requiring 50% support to pass (and remove the sysop bit from a person), which would happen only after a discussion on Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 75% is too high, IMO. --Rschen7754 19:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It does sound high, but why would a user require 75% support to become an admin, but then less than that to continue to be one? I would actually support lowering the support required to become an admin, to even 60 or 50%, but a user should be able to retain that level of support at any time as an admin IMO. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  From my experience on the English Wikipedia, you pick up enemies along the way, if you block someone or make an admin decision that a particular user doesn't like. --Rschen7754 20:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  To me, indeed, 50% sounds more reasonable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO 60% would be better. --Stryn (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I've heard people saying that about enwiki, but I've never seen or experienced that myself. On project where I've been an admin, I've managed to keep that level of support at any given time, by staying away from controversy and using the tools only in non-controversial ways, i.e. how the community wanted them used. Even still, giving it a bit more thought I'd be ok with something like 70% for an RfA and then 60% for a request for removal, to keep it easy to become an admin and to ensure that bad ones can still be removed with ease should the need arise. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  We can lose adminship by vote on the French Wikipedia for a few months now; 8 admins have had to pass another vote, 3 of them have kept it, 5 have lost it. We've kept the same rules as for becoming an admin, which means that there is no fixed threshold but there is little chance anyone keep the flag with less than 75% of support. It seems to me that it's possible to keep a strong support, even when being a bit controversial, as long as you're doing a good job. I'm not sure you could work easily with more than one person out of four that don't want you to be an admin… — Arkanosis ^✉ 23:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, there is two de-adminship proposals on Wikidata talk:Administrators, under "Adopt the Commons De-adminship policy" and two here. What for?--Snaevar (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The two on that page failed to generate consensus, though the removal by vote part did go through without issue. Most of the discussion was also about inactivity and not removal by vote, though it does seem like 75% to pass an RfA and 50% to keep is generally supported and perhaps we could just use that. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• On it.wiki 66% works quite fine, though I'd prefer to use a more commons-like system. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There should be some prior discussion on the admin's actions before someone can request de-adminshp, like on commons. This should prevent admins from suddenly be hit in the face with a de-adminship request. Techman224^Talk 01:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

I've looked over this and the two sections on WT:Administrators, and it seems that people generally support how things are done on Commons, with a request for removal of adminship being started following a discussion on their administrators' noticeboard, and 50% support to de-sysop. This system has worked there, so perhaps it is best if we use it. We can always change it if the need arises in the future. I don't think there is even much need for a vote on this, since comments and votes elsewhere form a pretty clear picture, but we could do that too if others think that it's necessary. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you do to prevent trolling? E.g. if somebody starts new request all the time if the de-sysop fails? The german wikipedia handles this by a page were 15 useres have to vote within 6 months to start a request for removal of adminship. --Sk!d (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using the commons policy, a request for removal of adminship would only occur after the issue had been brought up on the administrators' noticeboard, and consensus had developed to formally evaluate a user's continued use of the tools. Any more, and it would be impossible to de-sysop someone. Repeated attempts to de-sysop could also be considered a form of harassment, but we can deal with that bridge when we need to cross it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Sk!d's point; however if a user without real reasons does not stop to make requests to de-sysop anybody that'd be harrasment and disruption and I'd expect that user to be blocked and or banned from the project for that... Regards. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Commons proposal. --Rschen7754 02:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think how much percentage of voting to obtain admin status, so for it anyway to de-adminship. This rule applies in id.wp. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Commons. Ebe123 (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Although we all would love not to use such a procedure, there should be always a way to remove an administrator from the position if the user is harming the project. I think the Commons' system (AN discussion and removal vote by simple majority) is fine and I  Support that. Best regards. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support in the belief that if the situation Sk!d describes happens, consensus will very quickly form to close any loophole. —WFC— 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been discussions on inactivity before, but some good points have been raised which I think still apply - we have no idea what admins will be doing in a year, or even six months. Phase II, III and beyond could drastically increase the workload of admins, or that workload could be non-existent. As such, I propose that we put off making an inactivity policy until at least six months from now, with the expectation that current administrators will not be grandfathered under it. This means that it will apply retroactively to administrators at the time of making the policy.

• Support. --Rschen7754 20:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds reasonable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support, I think that 6 months is good time to wait, and after 6 months we know better what here have to do and how much. And six months later we can discuss again about this. --Stryn (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC) updated --Stryn (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as nominator. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, honestly I have almost nothing to do now, I hope I'll have more in the future ^^ --Vituzzu (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, 6 months inactivity seems ok. Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 01:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Six months seems perfect. I'm a bit against inactivity being a crtieria for loss of rights, but this seems fine. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Six months sounds fine --Guerillero | Talk 21:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support  Hazard-SJ  ✈  22:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. 6 months. Tpt (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Per Tpt above. -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support — Arkanosis ^✉ 23:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - 6 months seems fine. Romaine (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support removal for inactivity. I'd choose one year, but 6 months is OK too. (Question: what is inactivity?: no edits?, no admin actions? or no edits and admin actions for a given time? [I'd choose third option] -- That needs to be clarified). Regards. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The proposal is to define what inactive is in six months time, since we will then better understand what role admins will be able to fill on Wikidata. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose with regret, based on the current reconfirmation schedule. I know I'm swimming against the tide here, but I'm pretty confident that supporters will agree with large parts of what I'm about to say.

  The problem with this proposal is that the current temporary, soon-to-be permanent admins will have an input into those discussions. Most likely a decisive influence. I would strongly prefer that those admins were still temporary when this decision is taken, so that there can be no accusation of turkeys voting for or against Christmas. The way to get this right, and perhaps equally importantly to ensure that everyone can accept the outcome (even if they do not personally agree with it) is to ensure that we can take everyone's comments at face value. And the way to achieve that would be to delay the scheduled reconfirmations by six months, so that admins participating in this discussion, and indeed in the early days of phases two and three, can be scrutinised for what they have actually done. To my knowledge no admin has kicked up so much of a fuss that people are demanding that they go sooner? —WFC— 16:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  There will be an admin conflict of interest regardless of whether the admins or temporary or permanent, so I'm not sure what delaying the confirmations by six months would do. As it is with the confirmations starting in a month, I'll already be opposing 1/3 of the people due to inactivity, and a few others for other reasons - I think that sufficient time has gone by to effectively judge. There is always the de-sysop by vote process for other cases, but I'd like to think that an objective definition of "inactivity" can be defined then. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that two of our very finest admins ran for bureaucrat despite knowing there was consensus not to have crats, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that some admins who I do not hold in the same esteem as yourself or Sven might shamelessly vote – without reasoning – for whatever proposal makes adminship the most comfortable and/or easiest to retain. As you say, that might still happen if they are temporary (or permanent, with consensus for a future reconfirmation, if that technicality makes life easier for the stewards), but at least in the latter scenario we can hold such people to account when their reconfirmation takes place. For borderline candidates it might well influence whether or not they are reconfirmed. By contrast, if such people become permanent, it would be a lot more difficult (and understandably controversial) to discuss whether those people should be desysopped. —WFC— 17:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I do understand what you mean; on other projects I've been on, some admins have even come out of inactivity to specifically vote against inactivity proposals, and in one case even gathered enough support to make the proposal fail. That's partially where my hesitation comes from - if this vote occurs right before confirmations, many previously inactive admins who wanted to keep the trophy (or whatever their motivation might be) would probably be active again. Having a vote at that time might be even worse, since all of the people with the less-than-honourable motivation are already present, whereas in six months after the confirmations, many of those users would have hopefully lost the sysop bit and thus have no interest in the situation (hence my earlier remark of a more objective outcome). We're getting into theoretical situations here, and I do recognize your point - but I think we are trying two different approaches to accomplish the same thing. I'm not sure which is the best way to proceed. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support - Bzh-99 (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entire point of the proposal above was to postpone this discussion for six months, so we could have it once we knew what Wikidata looked like in a non-developmental stage. I'm not sure what there is to be confused about, unless you didn't read. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closure reverted. For clarity, despite my opposition above, I'm happy for Adraddatz's proposal to take presidence, and for this to merely be an early-stage discussion on the options we are likely to consider in six month's time. But actually shutting down all discussion on this issue strikes me as overkill. In the unlikely event that the aforementioned proposal fails, and to a lesser extent even if it succeeds, this discussion taking place would make things easier when it comes to deciding the matter for real. —WFC— 17:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Since we aren't dealing with specific numbers here, some discussion can commence. My only concern is that this will come up again on the later proposal, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

In the section above we are deciding whether we should remove administrators if they are inactive for a given period of time. But, what is inactivity? No edits? No admin actions? No admin actions and edits? Others? (Feel free to rewrite if you find this confusing, thanks).

1. With disdain for anyone who might view adminship as a status which, once granted, a user is entitled to hold regardless of whether or not they make use of it. Admins are not superusers (although many admins do do super non-admin work); adminship should not be a status. Remember the mop logo? It serves as a reminder that admins are simply users who have offered to do particular work for us, and who have been given additional tools on that basis. By performing no administrative work for an extended period of time, it can be reasonably assumed that the user has withdrawn that offer. If this is not the case, the user in question can either perform a token amount of admin work, or re-confirm that there is consensus for them to hold the tools in spite of the lack of work. —WFC— 16:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. No admin actions please. Even if someone is actively editing, if they don't use the tools then they don't need them. Note: This means any restricted action taken by an admin - editing a fully protected page or interface page counts. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per above.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Exactly as Ajraddatz. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 17:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. — MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support if it's going to be 6 months. But if it's 1 year I would support no admin actions. --Stryn (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Support see Stryn. --Sk!d (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Support -- It's more reasonable for me, per Stryn above. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. no edits and no log actions at all --Iste (D) 18:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simple proposal: Any RfAs that start after this RfC is successfully closed become for permanent, not temporary adminship.

• Support as nominator. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - this is the exact thing that is needed. --Rschen7754 19:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Snaevar (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 01:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose I don't think this here is a correct vote. There should be the possibility to decide if we want a fixed revote after a fixed period of time (e.g. every two years). --Sk!d (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  This is simply to say that all admins elected after this request is done are no longer accountable to stewards for re-election every three months - i.e. a "permanent" administrator. If we want to do additional confirmations or whatever else, we can, but this section is not about that. If you want to propose it, go ahead and start a section below, or wait for another time. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think the community is mature enough to have permanent admins. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - original consensus was for admins promoted starting 1 January to be permanent.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  So what happened to that consensus? :P  Hazard-SJ  ✈  22:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  My guess is that it crept up on us faster than we thought it would. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support  Hazard-SJ  ✈  22:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. I think that there is already a community, so we can vote for permanent admins. Tpt (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. What Tpt said. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Although we have permanent admins, but we still have rules and regulations for the cancellation of status if encountered fatal abuse. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Stryn (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support ---Iste (D) 18:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral I'm just wondering what will happen to temporary admins. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  All temporary admins will be confirmed over the course of a month or so. We have 60 to go through, in five-day intervals. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  To be precise, all of the temporary admins will have a chance to stand for confirmation (otherwise they lose the mop). I am not so sure all will stand, and all who stand will be confirmed.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support -- Romaine (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support ---- Bertrand GRONDIN  → ^(écrire) 10:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support ok IW 16:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose, consistent with my vote and rationale in the inactivity section. We should not have tenured admins until we have clearly defined the circumstances under which desysopping can and cannot happen. Otherwise we are likely to see a fait accompli, where permanent admins oppose any desysopping measures, in the knowledge that they will not be called upon to explain their positions at a reconfirmation. If for procedural reasons we want to make admins "permanent", with the caveat that there will be a reconfirmation once we have figured desysopping policy out (or indeed reached consensus that there won't be a desysopping policy), I'm fine with that. —WFC— 16:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure why we should make policies in such fear of the admin conspiracies that you suggest. Adminship here should be easy to give and take - if you have a major issue with an admin, then start a vote for desysopping them after an AN discussion (well, if that proposal passes). Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Even the very best, acting in good faith, can on occasion get it badly wrong. If that's the case, what about those whose judgement is not quite as good as yours, or those not quite as impartial as yourself? What I write above, and here, may not make for pleasant reading, but it's not an unreasonable view. —WFC— 17:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support - Bzh-99 (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simple counterproposal to permanent administrators: Any RfAs that start after this RfC is successfully closed also become only a temporary adminship. To vote here you have the possibility to say no to temporary administrators at all. Or you can decide after which Period of time a forced reelection have to take place.

1. Support, permanant sysops are bad as at the end, there are too many and the election system does not work. Ebe123 (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
   • Personally, I prefer not to have an administrator limit. Also, as you say the system does not work, we're always open to suggestions. Feel free to propose improvements.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  00:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support as nominator. --Sk!d (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. ....

1. ....

1. While I like the idea of this proposal, I think that with the current two ways of removing the sysop bit from someone (discussion or inactivity, though we won't have an inactivity policy for six months) that should be enough. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. This makes adminship political, and it should never be political. --Rschen7754 19:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. In case of admin abuse a simple !vote for desysop should be good enough.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. I agree with Jasper Deng. In addition, in the event that we have inactivity is a criteria for desysop, that could be used as well.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  22:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. I'm with Jasper Deng on this. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. We have a lot of experienced users now, so I am not at all worried about the experience future sysops will have. Also, in the unlikely scenario that we would need to remove the bit from an admin, we allready have conseus for the commons de-adminship policy on Wikidata talk:Administrators.--Snaevar (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. I agree with Jasper Deng Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 18:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Jasper Deng — Arkanosis ^✉ 13:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per Ajraddatz -- Bertrand GRONDIN  → ^(écrire) 10:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per Ajraddatz. We have a mechanism to remove the bit through discussion —WFC— 16:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Our community is still too small for admin re-elections - Bzh-99 (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Per Ajraddatz. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 17:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. Because I'm supporting permanent admin, at least for now. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...

---

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