Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining oversighters

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.

The drafted policy above is to be adopted.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Support ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support. James F. (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Support --Stryn (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Support--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Support --Rschen7754 19:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 20:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Support --Joe Decker (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Support --LlamaAl (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Support--Javad|Talk (29 Farvardin 1392) 22:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Support - I really like the part that lets stewards use their bit when doing xwiki work. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Support -- Cheers, Riley 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12.  Support Courcelles (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13.  Support Techman224^Talk 22:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14.  Support --Jitrixis (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15.  Support --Bill william compton (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16.  Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 18:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17.  Support Seems valid and covers most aspects needed. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18.  Support Seems fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19.  Support --Guerillero | Talk 14:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20.  Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Support – Add the caveat that consideration should be given to when administrative revision deletion is adequate, otherwise it's fine -- Byrial (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   We already have a revision deletion policy... --Rschen7754 09:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a concern that the above proposed policy doesn't seem to differentiate between what is oversight-appropriate and what is revision deletion-appropriate. For example, it looks very similar to en:WP:Oversight, which concerns me in that the proposed policy does not make it clear that oversight is not always necessary ("approved for use in these situations" does not assure me that it won't be used in such a situation where it is not necessary). --Izno (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This policy is almost the same as the global Oversight policy at meta, with some very slight tweaks. So, I might assume that your concern is with the global oversight policy? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it is missing the important caveat that not all things which qualify under the above criteria must necessarily be oversighted. --Izno (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the policy as written says. Where does it say must?--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely my concern. As written above, the policy is mute on whether they must or must not be, and I fear that "must" will become the default. Hence, the caveat as written at en.WP. --Izno (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Such a caveat is not present on the global policy, and that's why I failed to see it previously. Would you like me to add it to the above proposal? Also, I'd like to know if that caveat was designed entirely by you, or is it taken from any local oversight policy? Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the en. link above. Why would I craft it myself? As for whether you should add it, I don't know. I'm just raising the concern. :) --Izno (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. There's no issue here. Common sense is expected to be exercised by oversighters, and the more controversial cases can be discussed among them on a mailing list.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With a tool like oversight, I'm not sure I trust our users simply to just "have common sense". A reminder in this case is not a bad thing. --Izno (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's irrelevant. Common sense is something I, and likely the community, will look for in candidates. No-one will elect an oversighter who will suppress all revdelete-worthy material.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So how does that square with the argument you make below that "the software could be changed, so we should put it in policy"? Let's restrict users more than we need to in one place but forget to remind them of their common sense in another? In this case, it's only an irrelevant question if the community actually does that. I fail to see the protection afforded by placing such great faith in the community as to assume that they will pick candidates who have clue, especially with this kind of tool. I could just as easily make your same argument for the point of not restricting users to administrators. Plainly, just because the community will or will not do something does not mean that they should or should not be proscribed from doing it.

In the end, do what you will (Hahc). I'm just bringing forward a concern. --Izno (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can add your caveat to the policy page after the RfC is closed :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that admin is a needed restriction. Oversight's sensibility requires more than the trust of an administrator. Well, I firmly believe that the community is trusted to make good decisions, and if you assume Murphy's Law with the community, we can't have this discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Question – If we allow oversighters who are are not administrators, will they be able to make normal revision deletion without suppression? I suppose so, but just to be sure ... Byrial (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By default, they wouldn't. We'd need separate community consensus to make the appropriate configuration change to allow that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment, how important is "hiding the IP data of editors who accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses"? On the Finnish Wikipedia admins don't even always do revdel. Only if users request admin to hide his IP data. --Stryn (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy does not mandate the hiding, but it allows the use of the tool to hide on request.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's clear now. --Stryn (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Concerning elections etc, did anybody consulted WMF community liason, for example Philippe? I am afraid they could outright reject some of the options, so that we would not spend our time discussing them.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be specific as to the ones you feel are problematic? I am familiar with oversight policy globally, and have reviewed all options on this RFC, as have a few stewards. --Rschen7754 10:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know for instance in projects with Arbcom oversighters are appointed by Arbcom. I do not know whether the elections are ok if the project does not have an Arbcom (like ours), and, in particular, whether it is ok to have oversighters who are not admins. The rest is fine, except for the obvious provision that the oversighters-to-be have to be over 18 and have to identify themselves to the Foundation.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying principle is that in order to view deleted revisions, the candidate must have the approval of the community through a RFA or RFA-like process. An election like this is a RFA-like process. So this is allowed by the Foundation. What was not okay was ArbCom's community consultation on enwiki, because it was ArbCom who made the final decision on who got OS, not the community; it was not an election according to Philippe. Whether having a non-admin OS is a good idea or not is another question, and I've voted accordingly here, but it's technically allowed by the Foundation's rules. --Rschen7754 10:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what happens for instance if the community elects someone under 18? And if there were only two oversighters elected, and one is under 18? Do we wait until another one gets elected, to join the elected one, or we just disqualify the elections and hold new ones? Generally, if the number of oversighters is limited (which can be the outcome below), then the nomination and elections is not the best process, simultaneous elections are much better. Well, but may be indeed we should not discuss this in this section.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the community elects someone under 18, I can not confirm their age as required by the policy, and therefore, can not add them to the identification noticeboard, so the stewards would not activate their rights (our stewards are extremely diligent about checking the noticeboard prior to adding the rights, and we routinely audit). If only two were elected, and one was under 18, neither could take up their tools. At that point, the community would likely choose to hold another election, vacating the previous one, I would think. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That cannot happen. For a candidate to run, such candidate must be identified to the Foundation prior to running. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, it would be local project rule, not by Foundation policy. Local projects are free to adopt such a rule (for instance, the English Wikipedia, I believe, requires identification prior to running for the Arbitration Committee, though I'm not 100% sure of that without checking) but the WMF does not require it. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a Commons oversighter and someone who brought oversight to one wiki (the Polish Wikipedia) and someone who has been watching the identification process for some time, I can assure you that this is not true. You only need to be identified to the Foundation to actually get the tools; so you can be nominated for oversight (or checkuser) permissions, and only identify with the WMF after being approved by the community. odder (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is optimal though. Stewards will place unidentified requests on hold, sometimes even rejecting them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but this is not true, either. Stewards have no right to reject a community request when it's put on hold because the chosen candidate is not identified with the WMF. It is up to the candidate to send their identification details, and for the WMF to confirm whether they received them or not — stewards only perform the actual user right change, and should not pursue a decision-making role. odder (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, we shouldn't let unidentified candidates to run. That will create an unnecessary mess. What if the candidate runs, and is elected, but he or she has 14 years? Will the request be held for 4 years? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can always use common sense, for one, and two — how about if I cared so much about my privacy that I would not like to be identified to the WMF? I mean, sending my ID to the US where FBI can just make the WMF give it to them might seem a bit risky to some people. It might be especially risky if people send their IDs to the Foundation, and then end up not being approved by the community... odder (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In such a case, your issue is with the access to non-public data policy as a whole, and isn't specific to this instance, as I understand your question. You would need to discuss that with the Board of Trustees, as they are the ones who created the policy. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The stewards actually will take care of that aspect for us - they will hold a request until someone is identified, and deal with the 2+ rule. In order to identify, you must be 18. --Rschen7754 21:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You only need to be 18 (and the age of majority in your jurisdiction) to identify for this specific user right — you can identify for other things (for instance OTRS access) when you're just 16. odder (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Practically speaking, no one does, because we no longer require identification for OTRS access. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the sections below, I think the policy is a bit incomplete. It does not say how oversighters are to be contacted, unlike the global oversight policy and other oversight policies on other projects.--Snaevar (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot set up the lists or queues or whatever we will use until we have oversighters. --Rschen7754 11:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Community consensus leans towards having adminship as a prerequisite for the oversight right.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only administrators can hold oversight permission.

1.  Support It only makes sense this way.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support, makes sense. --Stryn (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Support James F. (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Support per James below. --Rschen7754 20:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Support --Javad|Talk (29 Farvardin 1392) 20:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 20:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Reject. I see no reason to restrict this only to administrators, even though you will probably need the toolset to make the correct judgement. --Izno (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   There is currently a technical glitch that disallows non-admins to hold oversight permission. I was informed about this some time ago, so technically, every oversighter must be an admin. I assume this has something to do with the Revision delete tool. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I... doubt that. You may wish to verify that claim. --Izno (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   It's related to the set of rights the two groups have.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   On wikidata OS does not have viewdeleted and cannot view deleted revisions. --Rschen7754 02:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   (edit conflict) In the past, oversighters used an independent extension named "Special:Oversight" to hide the revisions, and such revisions couldn't be restored unless a sysadmin did so directly from the database. With the development of RevisionDelete, and the integration of the suppression tool inside RevisionDelete as a replacement for the old Oversight extension, it became a neccessity that the user had access to the complete RevisionDelete tool to properly use the suppression function. Therefore, giving an account oversight access without already having sysop access returned a technical impossibility. This was discovered when Mplearc was accepted as an oversighter on en.wiki by ArbCom, but it was impossible to add the userright because he wasn't an admin. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   So, if it is a technical impossibility, why is this a policy question?... The question seems moot. --Izno (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   In theory, it's possible to assign the proper rights to non-admins via software changes, but an oversighter who can't delete a page or block libel-inserting users doesn't make sense to me.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8.  Support It doesn't make sense to me if a user who doesn't have the permission to perform standard deletions is allowed to suppress anything. --Iste (D) 21:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Support --LlamaAl (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Support--Makecat (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Like crats, I don't think this needs to be stated in policy. The technical issue is moot, since we can easily adjust the individual userrights the oversight group has if the case was ever needed. Legoktm (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. I believe this is actually a WMF requirement that everybody with access to confidential information should go through some community-scrutiny process first, and it is pretty much logical therefore that oversighters should be administrators. Also, technically it would be very difficult for them to work without admin flag.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Specifically, they have to go through a RFA-like process: [1] --Rschen7754 10:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

13.  Neutral--Snaevar (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14. support - makes sense. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15. I did some testing as an en.wp oversighter last year, and at least one of the main tools of oversighters, the deletion suppression tool, does not work without a sysop bit, so, I can't support appointing non-admins oversighters. Courcelles (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16. An alternative would be to add some of the sysop tools to the OS-group. No, keep it simple.... -- Lavallen (block) 18:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17.  Neutral -- Cheers, Riley 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18.  Support --Jitrixis (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19.  Support --Bill william compton (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20.  Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 18:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
21.  Support per technical limitations. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22.  Support CUs and OSes need to have gone through an RfA-like process per the WMF's policy on access to private information. Also, I feel that if you can OS but not revdel, that might lead to situations where OSes are done unnecessarily. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
23.  Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
24.  Support -- a non-sysop Oversighter will be more tempted to suppress than revdel (or take other more appropriate action). I accept adding revdel to the Oversight rights would resolve this but I prefer the sysop-only-Oversighter solution QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense of the division of powers, current bureaucrats and checkusers cannot request oversight access.

1.  Strong oppose - if a user can be trusted with more than one of those, why not? There's no benefit to restricting it this way.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Oppose - seems pointless.. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Oppose makes it difficult to CU accounts whose names have been suppressed. --Rschen7754 19:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Support There shouldn't be any local "super users" on Wikidata, in my opinion. This system works very well on dewiki. Regards, Vogone talk 20:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   There's no danger in having "super users". It's more efficient if we have them, anyways.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Not really. It just means you're expecting one person to do a bunch of different tasks so they burn out faster. Legoktm (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I think this is overstated - I know of some people who have held both CU and OS on enwiki for years. CU is quite time consuming, but OS generally isn't. Also, it's best if at least some of the CUs hold OS, in the event that a CU needs to be done on accounts whose names were suppressed. --Rschen7754 06:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5.  Oppose Wikidata is a wiki, not a democratic state. --Iste (D) 20:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Support. If a user can be trusted with one important right, he should focus on that one right. Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 20:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Oppose, this is nothing like "yeah, I'm a superman", this is wiki. --Stryn (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Strong oppose. Per Jasper and Iste. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Support per Vogone. - Ypnypn (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Oppose--Makecat (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Oppose with the expectation that users who vote will try and avoid super users. Legoktm (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12.  Oppose I don´t see an use for that.--Snaevar (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13.  Strong oppose I have discoverd that you sometimes have to use both the crat-tools AND the OS-tools at the same time. It happend when there was a username with private information. To remove the name from all logs, the user had to be renamed. Therefor I would recomend at least one OS who is bureaucrat at the same time. -- Lavallen (block) 18:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14.  Oppose -- Cheers, Riley 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15.  Oppose I often find myself using both tools on the same problem on enwp, having at least some folks with both CU and OS is good, crat matters less, though. Courcelles (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16.  Oppose --Jitrixis (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17.  Oppose --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18.  Oppose If trust lies with one, trust can lie with the other. In many cases CheckUsers requests may turn up accounts that may fit for hiding or have edits that can require oversighting. Saying a CheckUser can't also be an Oversighter will in theory delay the system making it ineffective should that be the case. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19.  Oppose Attempting to prevent problem that has not been demonstrated to exist. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20.  Oppose -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the foundation states that an RfA-like process will suffice, non-admins can hold the oversight permission, after a successful request for permissions is held.

1.  Oppose Vogone talk 20:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Oppose; OS requires most of the admin tools already to be a useful tool. James F. (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Oppose per James, and also because revdel is an appropriate response to answer some requests with. --Rschen7754 20:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Oppose --Stryn (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Opposeper James --Javad|Talk (29 Farvardin 1392) 20:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Oppose --LlamaAl (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Oppose--Makecat (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Support – Let the community decide who they want though the RFP process -- Byrial (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Neutral --Snaevar (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose purely for the technical reason that a non-admin oversighter does not have access to the full tool set. Courcelles (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Oppose -- Cheers, Riley 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12.  Oppose --Jitrixis (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13.  Oppose --Bill william compton (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14.  Oppose --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15.  Oppose John F. Lewis (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16.  Oppose We have such a low bar for adminship that I can't think of anyone that could pass a request for OS but not an RfA. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17.  Oppose -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This was a fairly close discussion, but considering there are more opposes for 85% and at least one more explicitly stated support for 80%, the requirements are a minimum of 80% support, of which there must be at least 25 supporting votes.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

25 support votes and 80% support is the minimum required to become an oversighter.

1.  Support - 85% is a bit high for me.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Neutral - I don't feel strongly about my support and would rather just go with other peoples votes. Personally I do not feel there is much difference between 80 and 85 % and would be happy with either. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Support - agree with Jasper, this is high enough. James F. (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Support --Rschen7754 20:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Oppose Definitely too low. A local OS should have the trust of every active community member. So I'd even support 95% or 100%. Especially since OS actions aren't logged publicly. Regards, Vogone talk 20:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Admins naturally offend people (that they block, for example), so that's a good way to make sure that we never get oversighters, ever... --Rschen7754 public (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I never saw such a case on Wikidata, TBH. Furthermore, I was talking about active community members; not trolls and users from other wikis. Regards, Vogone talk 16:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7.  Support 80% are more than sufficient; on dewiki we only require 70% of support and I've never seen any complaints about that. --Iste (D) 20:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 20:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Neutral, I don't oppose, but 85% is better. --Stryn (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Oppose Per Vogone, I'd support 85% to 90% Regards --Javad|Talk (29 Farvardin 1392) 21:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Support --Joe Decker (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12.  Oppose Per Vogone. 85% looks better. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13.  Neutral, per Stryn. --Ricordisamoa 22:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14.  Neutral, would like 85% or more. - Ypnypn (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15.  Support, same as Iste, having the same ratio that bureaucratship is less complicated. --Nouill (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16.  Oppose, a bit low in my view. --Makecat (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17.  Neutral If we estimate ~35 users participation, this means an additional 2 users can oppose (as compared to 85%). I'm not opposed to it, but not in support either. Legoktm (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18.  Oppose Too low.--Snaevar (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19. support - 80 is good. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20.  Support--Jitrixis (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
21.  Support Adéquate. --Bill william compton (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22.  Support 25 votes + 80% support is high enough. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
23.  Support 80% is enough. Techman224^Talk 20:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
24.  Oppose John F. Lewis (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
25.  Support Considering the way that votes have gone on this project, 80% and 85% are functionally identical. I support both. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
26.  Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
27.  Support -- Seems like a reasonable percentage of the vote. TCN7JM 01:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

25 support votes and 85% support is the minimum required to become an oversighter.

1.  Support --Stryn (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support Vogone talk 20:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Oppose - agree with Jasper, this is too high. James F. (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Oppose too high. --Rschen7754 20:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Oppose Let's use the same support ratio as in requests for bureaucratship – insignificantly varying requirements won't help anyone, but just cause a confusing situation. --Iste (D) 20:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Oppose, too high. Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 20:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Support this is better --Javad|Talk (29 Farvardin 1392) 21:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Support --LlamaAl (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Support, per Stryn. --Ricordisamoa 22:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Support - Ypnypn (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Support--Makecat (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12.  Support Last I saw, our RfPs are getting around 35 votes. This means that if more than 5 people oppose they wouldn't get it. I believe that is a reasonable number. Legoktm (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13.  Support – The requirements for consensus must be very high as the community is not able to monitor the work -- Byrial (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14.  Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15.  Support -- Cheers, Riley 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16.  Oppose --Jitrixis (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17.  Oppose --Bill william compton (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18.  Oppose --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19.  Oppose--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20.  Support John F. Lewis (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
21.  Support Considering the way that votes have gone on this project, 80% and 85% are functionally identical. I support both. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22.  Oppose -- It's too high, so 80% more reasonable. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
23.  Oppose -- Too high. 4/5 of the vote is definitely enough. TCN7JM 01:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Bureaucrats will evaluate requests regarding the granting or removing of oversight access.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrats will close requests for the granting or removal of oversight access, and will post at m:SRP accordingly.

1.  Support makes sense.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support also makes sense to me ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Support --Rschen7754 20:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 20:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Support --Stryn (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Support --Javad|Talk (29 Farvardin 1392) 21:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Support --LlamaAl (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Support--Makecat 02:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Support I suppose I have a COI, but it makes sense to me. Legoktm (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Support -- Byrial (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Support Obviously.--Snaevar (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. support Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13.  Support -- Cheers, Riley 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14.  Support Courcelles (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15.  Support --Jitrixis (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16.  Support --Stryn (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17.  Support Raisonnable. --Bill william compton (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18.  Support 25 votes + 80% support is high enough. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19.  Support John F. Lewis (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20.  Weak support I understand the idea behind this, but I'm not sure if limiting it only to 'crats is the way to go. I'm not sure if there's a better alternative though. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
21.  Support Crat's are there to weigh consensus - this is their role QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22.  Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

According to consensus, 1 week is insufficient for requests for oversight access.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1 week of discussion for a candidate is required to pass.

1.  Support ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Oppose - This is too short. James F. (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Support --Iste (D) 20:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Oppose, see James F. Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 20:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Support per Iste. LlamaAl (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Oppose, too short to gain consensus.--Makecat 02:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Oppose --Rschen7754 03:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Oppose Too short.--Snaevar (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Oppose too short --Jitrixis (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Oppose --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12.  Neutral Can be too short for certain candidates. However can be enough for others. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13.  Oppose I think that you can find a consensus in a week, but I don't think you can get 25 votes in a week. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The RFBs got 30-40 votes in 1 week though. Regards, Vogone talk 04:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Only the first three, and mostly because of the RfC... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Some admin confirmations also had over 40 votes. One just need to announce it somewhere. Regards, Vogone talk 07:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Advertising RfBs on a daily basis makes no sense to me unless it's absolutely necessary. If we have to do that too much, it may be because we need to reduce the required # of votes to, say, 12.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    O_O … actually we are talking about oversighters, not bureaucrats. RFBs were just an example for showing that getting 25 votes in 1 week is absolutely possible. Regards, Vogone talk 09:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Advertising RFOSes is even required by global policy, by the way. ("The candidates must request it within the local community and advertise this request to the local community properly (community discussion page, mailing list, etc).") Regards, Vogone talk 14:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

14.  Oppose -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

For a request to be considered successful, it must remain open for no less than 2 weeks.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 weeks of discussion for a candidate are required to pass.

1.  Support James F. (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support Vogone talk 20:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Support --Rschen7754 20:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Oppose Let's use the same voting time as in requests for bureaucratship – insignificantly varying terms won't help anyone, but just cause a confusing situation. --Iste (D) 20:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 20:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Support --Stryn (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Support --Javad|Talk (29 Farvardin 1392) 21:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Support--Makecat 02:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Support Legoktm (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Support -- Byrial (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. support - to be comparable with such requests elsewhere. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13.  Support -- Cheers, Riley 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14.  Support --Jitrixis (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15.  Support --Bill william compton (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16.  Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17.  Support John F. Lewis (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18.  Support Makes more sense if we need to reach a number as high as 25. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19.  Support -- Give more time for our community, please. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There is more consensus that if Wikidata elects local oversighters, there must be at least two users holding the right at any given time.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There must be at least two users with oversight permission on Wikidata.

1.  Support ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support James F. (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Support Vogone talk 20:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Oppose I think two oversighters are not enough to always act in a timely manner. --Iste (D) 20:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Support as three is not enforceable. --Rschen7754 20:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 20:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Support--Javad|Talk (29 Farvardin 1392) 21:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Support --LlamaAl (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Support--Makecat 02:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Support Courcelles (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12.  Support -- Cheers, Riley 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13.  Support --Jitrixis (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14. RTFM! You have to have at least 2 OS, otherwise would be against the meta-policy. If we elect only one, she/he would not be installed until we have two. And if we have two and one resign, both will loose their tools. RTFM! -- Lavallen (block) 11:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Errrrrrm… that's actually the proposal. I see no option "at least one oversighter" here, to be honest. Regards, Vogone talk 11:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    But why start to "support" under this header!? It nothing we can vote or have any opinion about. -- Lavallen (block) 11:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked the same question on IRC. Jasper said, you can oppose here in favour of the option "at least 3". Regards, Vogone talk 11:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the choice is between 2 or 3. --Rschen7754 11:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

15.  Neutral I'm fine either way.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16.  Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17.  Support John F. Lewis (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18.  Oppose -- Per Iste (D) above. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19.  Support -- The global minimum of two appears perfectly reasonable, though it seems there will definitely be more seeing as the consensus below is for no restrictions. TCN7JM 01:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There must be at least three users with oversight permission on Wikidata.

1.  Oppose - unnecessary given our community. James F. (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support I think two oversighters are not enough to always act in a timely manner. --Iste (D) 20:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Oppose Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 20:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Oppose I'm not even sure this is enforceable by the stewards anyway. --Rschen7754 public (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   It is. --MF-W 01:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5.  Support - Ypnypn (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Support – Better in case of disputes over actions -- Byrial (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Neutral I'm fine either way.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Support The reason that we don't allow just one person to hold an advanced position is to make sure that any one OS has a check in the form of another OS. I think that we can easily find at least three people who would sail through, so in keeping with the spirit of the protection, I say let's set the bar here. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There are no restrictions as it relates to the maximum number of users with the oversight right.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a restriction to three users with oversight permission on Wikidata.

1.  Oppose - more people to help deal with the problem is useful. James F. (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Oppose Too few.--Snaevar (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Oppose Too low for even below adequate availability, really. Courcelles (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Oppose --Jitrixis (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Oppose --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Oppose -- Only one people? Wagino 20100516 (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a restriction to five users with oversight permission on Wikidata.

1.  Support It is quite important not to have so many users who can look into sensible data. Otherwise it wouldn't be a real suppression. Regards, Vogone talk 20:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Oppose - Though I understand the concern were the numbers of oversighters to reach the level of sysops, this is not likely to occur. James F. (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 20:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Oppose In the long run, such a restriction might lead to having five oversighters who all are not very active, with no chance to get new helping hands. --Iste (D) 20:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Requesting removal of rights due to inactivity is always possible + "Stewards can perform local oversighting in emergencies" a few lines above … Vogone talk 20:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   The goal of having local oversighters is not to need stewards anymore to regularly perform suppressions on this wiki. Furthermore, removal due to inactivity only takes place if a user is completely inactive for one year or if there is a successful removal request, so there may be users who only make alibi actions to retain their rights. This is normally not a damage for the wiki, but it is if we have a maximal number of holders. Regards --Iste (D) 20:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Having really suppressed revisions is probably the most important thing related to OSes. At the end it really doesn't matter who supresses. It is just important that someone supresses. And making alibi actions just to prevent losing permissions is hat collecting and a really bad style, which would even justify a deselection. Regards, Vogone talk 21:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree it is not important who performs suppressions, but if the community decides to let local users perform them, then it should be made sure there are always enough people to do so. If a user requests an action to be performed by a local oversighter and subsequently has to contact a steward because there is no local OS available, this is an uncalled-for loss of time. I also don't think it really matters if five or twenty highly trusted users may view private information. As long as every oversighter is individually suitable to hold the rights, it doesn't make sense to have a very small "elite troop" just to keep up a kind of secretiveness. Regards --Iste (D) 21:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, this is the way how it works on the second largest Wikimedia project. And until now, my requests (via mailing list) were always handled quickly there. Regards, Vogone talk 22:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I just don't think it'll work here, given that Wikidata is such a different community, and most other wikis, including the largest (enwiki), work without limits.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5.  Oppose I find Vogone's argument absurd. We won't have more than probably 10 at a time, and they will always be a minority of all users, even more so than admins.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you very much. Vogone talk 21:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   My two cents: Although I understand Vogone's legit concern, I think that the difference is that oversighters need to be identified to the Wikimedia Foundation. We currently have only 11 (or so) identified administrators, and only three to four of them have shown an interest in becoming local oversighters. Therefore, I doubt we will ever have more than 10 oversighters, given that (i) not all of our admins are over the majority age, (ii) not all of our admins are willing to identify, and (iii) not all of our admins have shown interest in becoming oversighters. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Besides, there is nothing that will prevent the community from opposing a candidacy should it be felt that there are enough oversighters as is. --Rschen7754 public (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6.  Oppose - Ypnypn (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Neutral If we do implement such an rule, we might need the Gjennomføring av valg section of the norwegian oversight policy. For those of you that do not understand norwegian, it is basicly about what should be done when the available spots are fewer than the canditates. --Snaevar (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Oppose--Jitrixis (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Support In my opinion, for the time being, we don't need so much users with this right. But I recognize my position is probably minority, so I won't oppose the next option. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Oppose -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No restrictions.

1.  Light support - due to wikidatas multi language nature I feel setting a hard limit on the number of oversighters at this time might be a bad idea. I also agree that having too many OS users would defeat the point of OS but I would hope when the level became two high the community would just stop supporting requests. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support - there's absolutely no need to restrict this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Support will come through voting anyway. --Rschen7754 19:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Support, I don't see any harm. --Stryn (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Strong oppose Vogone talk 20:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Support - especially as the multi-lingual nature of the wiki makes a small number of OSers' jobs hard. James F. (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 20:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7.  Support The more oversighters we have, the faster someone will act when suppression is needed. --Iste (D) 20:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   "Stewards can perform local oversighting in emergencies" a few lines above … Vogone talk 20:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   In my opinion every case where suppression is needed is an emergency. If we need stewards to regularly perform suppressions in the future, it won't make any sense to have local oversighters at all. Regards --Iste (D) 20:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   The sentence has a second part: "if there are no local oversighters available" ;-) Regards, Vogone talk 20:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   And electing inactive and unreachable community members is kind of contraproductive. Vogone talk 20:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I know about the second part, but the normal case should be that there are local oversighters available as fast as possible. My concerns were also not about electing community members that are inactive, but about users who already have oversighter permissions and then become less active. Regards --Iste (D) 21:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   In my opinion, we should either have the stewards do OS requests or we should do them entirely in house. Having stewards dealing with emergencies is one thing, but if the stewards keep having to intervene, it causes more problems than it solves. --Rschen7754 03:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Feel free to change the policy proposal above. :-D Regards, Vogone talk 22:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8.  Support --Joe Decker (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Support per Addshore --Javad|Talk (29 Farvardin 1392) 21:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Support --LlamaAl (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Support--Makecat 02:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12.  Support -- Byrial (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. support Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14.  Support Leave this Q open, until we see how much workload there is for the users. That would also simplify the possibility to add new OS if there will be temporary inactivity among these users. -- Lavallen (block) 18:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15.  Support -- Cheers, Riley 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16.  Support Courcelles (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17.  Support Techman224^Talk 04:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18.  Support--Jitrixis (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19.  Support --Bill william compton (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20.  Neutral --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
21.  Support If someone is considered trustworthy enough to get OS from the community, why let artificial barriers get in the way. Obviously OS is a big deal, but let's not make it a bigger deal than is needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22.  Support if a restriction is set, they'll just be votes in the future to change it. If people think there are enough oversighters, they can vote against new candidates QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
23.  Neutral -- I think Wikidata needed more peoples for this right. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requests for the removal of the oversight right should be considered successful if the votes supporting the removal request is at least 1/3.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Oversight flag can be removed by a 50% vote in support of removal

1.  Oppose - too high a threshold. James F. (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Oppose, per Jdforrester. --Ricordisamoa 22:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Oppose Since we are voting on oversighters, then the treshold is too high.--Snaevar (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Oppose --Jitrixis (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Oppose --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Oppose -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Oversight flag can be removed by a 1/3 vote in support of removal

1.  Support given the sensitivity of this permission.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Support - per Jasper. James F. (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Support --Rschen7754 20:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 20:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Support--Javad|Talk (29 Farvardin 1392) 21:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Support --LlamaAl (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Support --Ricordisamoa 22:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Support - Ypnypn (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Support--Makecat 02:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11.  Support -- Byrial (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12.  Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13.  Support -- Cheers, Riley 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14.  Support --Jitrixis (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15.  Support --Stryn (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16.  Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17.  Support --Guerillero | Talk 14:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18.  Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Users with the oversight right will not undergo periodic reconfirmations, but rather, will retain the right indefinitely unless it has been voluntarily resigned, if the community votes in favor of the removal (to be determined via above discussions), or if the holder of the right is deemed "inactive".  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Oversight flag is to be retained except when lost under inactivity, under a rights removal request, or by voluntary resignation.

1.  Support, especially given that we'll have a local removal procedure. As with bureaucrats, any problematic holders of the right can be removed by community vote, and it's needless to reconfirm all of them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Support as JD ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Support James F. (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Support --Rschen7754 20:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Support --Javad|Talk (29 Farvardin 1392) 22:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Support --LlamaAl (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Support --Ricordisamoa 22:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Support--Makecat 02:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Support – pr. Jasper Deng -- Byrial (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Neutral The oversight flag can also be lost in the case of abusive use.--Snaevar (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but that would fall under either a rights removal request, or emergency removal by a steward that we have no control over. --Rschen7754 11:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, but the emergency removal by a steward should be mentioned. That is my point.--Snaevar (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

11.  Comment I have sent some questions regarding this to wmf, through an Ombudsman. I have not got any answers yet, so I choose to not vote... -- Lavallen (block) 18:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid you won't get a response through the Ombudsman Commision. Ombudsmen handle requests regarding checkuser, not oversight. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The Q was related to the privacy-policy, and when it is in conflict with the consensus of the local wiki. That is a subject related to both OS and CU's. On svwp, I think we have discovered that it is more or less impossible for a OS to be bold, and act according to the official policy, when (s)he has to be reconfirmed once a year. I think the Swedish OS's are now tied behind their back by the local community in an unhealthy way. -- Lavallen (block) 07:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If you'd like me to answer particular questions, please feel free to send them directly to me.... philippe@wikimedia.org. No need to go through the ombudsmen. :) Philippe (WMF) (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12.  Support -- Cheers, Riley 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13.  Support --Jitrixis (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14.  Support --Stryn (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15.  Support --Bill william compton (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16.  Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17.  Support Per Jasper Deng. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18.  Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There is no consensus for annual reelection/reconfirmation of users with the oversight right.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Oversight flag is to be retained after a regular reelection after holding the rights for 1 year, except if another user who has no access yet has gained more support in his election.

This can only work if a restriction for the number of holders is set.

1.  Support Vogone talk 20:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Oppose - re-election is ridiculous for a tool that can't be usefully judged by people without it; there would be no point to this yearly confirmation. James F. (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   There is no way to handle that in another way, if restrictions are set as mentioned above … Vogone talk 20:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Of course there is - if anyone feels an oversighter has been bad at their job or is inactive (or whatever other reason the community has), they can nominate them for removal at any time. James F. (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Nope. Otherwise no new OSes could be elected. Regards, Vogone talk 20:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   There's nothing to stop us from appointing new oversighters to replace removed ones.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   True. But how do you plan to temove old ones if not through a reconfirmation. Regards, Vogone talk 22:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Old ones can be removed through the usual removal process (which is heading toward a 1/3 minority in favor of removal).--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3.  Support Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 20:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Oppose per James and my previous oppose of bureaucrat reconfirmation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   ? Vogone talk 21:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   See my comments on the bureaucrat RfC.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, I understand that. But this is a completely different proposal. Vogone talk 21:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   However, I'm opposing for very similar reasons.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5.  Oppose this makes OS political. --Rschen7754 public (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Oppose - I don't want any negative campaigns (this was enough) - Ypnypn (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. oppose - no politics please. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Oppose --Jitrixis (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Oppose --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Oppose -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

All oversight requests will be handled by the local team, and not by stewards. Stewards may, however, be used for gaining advice as to whether of not content should be oversighted (or unoversighted, for that matter).  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If no active local oversighter is able to understand an oversight request in another language, the local oversighter(s) can ask a steward to help translate the message and/or handle the oversight request.

•  Comment Stewards are no translators. If the message is uncomprehensible for the oversighters it is up to the reporter to make it understandable. Regards, Vogone talk 19:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose per Vogone.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose also per vogone ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose also per Vogone. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This actually makes sense, and I'm not sure what it's being opposed. If the local OS(s) can't do the job, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to take the case to someone who both a) understands the language and b) is able to act in the capacity of OS, steward, or otherwise. Asking the reporter to "fix" his report isn't the answer to this problem, though it can help get to a reasonable solution. --Izno (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Maybe they can help with translation, but they will not "handle the oversight request". It would be against the purpose of the Stewards to act on a wiki with own OS. -- Lavallen (block) 15:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment "As Stewards are authorised to see suppressed content on all projects, then in the event that a local oversighter cannot confirm if the content should be suppressed (for example, due to language skills) then they may discuss the content with a Steward for the purposes of taking advice. The Steward will not perform the suppression, the decision to suppress and responsibility for the suppression remains with the Wikidata oversighter." ? QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]