Last modified on 26 December 2013, at 14:35

Wiktionary:Votes/2012-11/Bureaucrats and de-privving

Bureaucrats and de-privvingEdit

  • Voting on: two closely-related issues:
    • De-sysopping:
      • Original behavior: Up until a few years ago, members of the "Bureaucrats" group had the ability to add users to the "Administrators" group, but did not have the ability to remove users from this group. Under this behavior, a user who wanted to be de-sysopped would submit his/her request to the Wikimedia Stewards, via m:Steward requests/Permissions; and similarly in urgent cases of admin vandalism, in cases where the community decided to de-sysop a long-inactive user, and so on. The removal, once effected, would appear in a central log on meta (e.g. at m:Special:Log/rights?page=Fonzy@enwiktionary).
      • Current behavior: A few years ago, a configuration change occurred, apparently inadvertently and without prior discussion here, whereby bureaucrats became able to de-sysop a user. Currently, we can still use m:Steward requests/Permissions (in which case the priv-removal still goes in that central log), but more often a bureaucrat here handles it, in which case it appears in the user's user-rights log here on en.wikt (e.g. at Special:Log/rights?page=Jeffqyzt).
    • De-bureaucratting:
      • Original behavior: Analogously to the above, bureaucrats had the ability to add users to the "Bureaucrats" group, but not to remove users from it.
      • Current behavior: Analogously to the above, bureaucrats now have the ability to add or remove users to and from the "Bureaucrats" group.
  • Note that, despite our usual practice of sticking with the status quo — even if never voted on — unless there's consensus to change it, Nemo bis (talkcontribs) seems to feel quite strongly that we must revert to the original behavior unless we have consensus to retain the current behavior. (Originally he argued that we should be forced back to the original behavior regardless of what we want, but he's now accepted the compromise position that we can keep the current behavior if we demonstrate clear consensus to do so.) So, hopefully we have a clear consensus in one direction or the other, to avoid needless complexity on that point. I encourage y'all to try to agree with each other. :-P
  • Vote starts: 00:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Subvote 'A': De-sysoppingEdit

Re: De-sysopping: Support restoring original behaviorEdit
  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support —Stephen (Talk) 01:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: De-sysopping: Support retaining current behaviorEdit
  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support never change a running system -- Liliana 20:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support - -sche (discuss) 20:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg SupportCodeCat 20:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support because we sometimes need direct on-site action (Wonderfool should keep us on our feet, with any luck) and that, to me, is the point of having 'crats here at all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support.​—msh210 (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support DCDuring TALK 07:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support. There are a lot of lingering administrators. At some point in the future, we may need to be able to do this more frequently and, in my opinion, more fluidly. DAVilla 10:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support because crats are higher lever than admins and since they are local and they have the privilege of sysopping, they also ought to have the priv to desysop. --biblbroksдискашн 20:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: De-sysopping: Oppose both optionsEdit
Re: De-sysopping: AbstainEdit
  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Dan Polansky (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Subvote 'B': De-bureaucratingEdit

Re: De-bureaucrating: Support restoring original behaviorEdit
  1. Symbol support vote.svg SupportCodeCat 20:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support —Stephen (Talk) 01:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support This, that and the other (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support. There are very few bureaucrats anyway, and it should always take a higher level user to remove privileges. DAVilla 10:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support per DAVilla. --biblbroksдискашн 20:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: De-bureaucrating: Support retaining current behaviorEdit
  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Liliana 20:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support - -sche (discuss) 20:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC) While I feel strongly that bureaucrats need to be able to desysop other users, because we've had to emergency-desysop at least two people that I know of and probably more before my time, I don't feel strongly about de-bureaucrating. I've therefore struck my vote, so that consensus will be as clear as possible. - -sche (discuss) 17:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: De-bureaucrating: Oppose both optionsEdit
Re: De-bureaucrating: AbstainEdit
  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Dan Polansky (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

DecisionsEdit

For desysoping, retention of current behavior passes 8–1–1; thus, our bureaucrats can continue to desysop. For debureaucratting, restoration of original behavior passes 6–1–1; thus, we should request of those with the ability to do so that they restrict our bureaucrats from debureaucratting. (And, meanwhile, I suppose, our bureaucrats shouldn't debureaucrat.)​—msh210 (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)