Thehelpfulonewiki wrote:

Hi there. I'm not sure of the size of the nn.wikipedia community, but 5 users is typically not enough to show consensus - therefore this will probably be on hold for at least a week. Please can you post a link to that discussion to any other high-traffic noticeboards in the mean time? Thanks.

chstole wrote:

I could explicitly ask for more votes, in case there are some who have seen the vote but could not be bothered to cast their vote. Beyond that, there is not much I can do.

The community is not very large, no. I initiated the debate 9 days ago - 6 May - and during all that time, the response to the proposal has been exclusively positive.

Stewards already exist for that role and function, and it is usually a low number of activities, so what is the demonstrated need for this to occur? Many larger communities function very well without the right.

With regard to the community size, numbers just now pulled from the API

Server: nn.wikipedia.org
No. of pages: 201 462
No. of articles: 82 972
No. of_edits: 2 096 956
No. of users: 38 928
No. of active users: 284
No. of group:autopatrolled = 155
No. in group:sysop: 30
No. in group:bureaucrat: 3
No. in group:oversight: 0
No. in group:checkuser: 0
No. in group:bot = 112

chstole wrote:

It is rare that we promote new administrators and give/remove bot flags, should we hand over those responsibilities in full to the stewards as well?

This is a community decision. Any debate over the principles of local wiki authority should be taken on Meta, not here.

The precedent on this particular topic is that the local community decides; see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35258 for a recent example.

According to these statistics: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryNN.htm

we had 51 active editors and 8 very active editors on nn.wiki this March. Traditionally, most of our active editors have had admin rights.

Frwiki has 7 'crats. Nnwiki has 3. That's quite a difference.

I am unsure of the proper community size for this to be implemented in the current policy vacuum regarding it. 8 votes is clearly not enough for this to be implemented of course, I would imaging CU-like numbers to be a good estimate, and at more than 2 'crats (personally, I would say at least 5, but there's no policy so that should be up for discussion at a more proper avenue than bugzilla).

So, I would say that the requirements I would go for are CU-like numbers for the polls, and at least 3-5 'crats.

However I would say that this matter should be properly discussed on meta and a global policy about this drafted, but in the meantime I would say that the bare minimum requirements I posted should seem pretty sensible. What do you guys think?

chstole wrote:

I cannot see that anyone has demonstrated *why* this should be such a problematic move.

In the case that a bureaucrat should demote an admin because he simply because he disagreed with him, that would be obvoius abuse and the community/community members could go to meta to have the bureaucrat removed from his position. The community could be better off after such an incident, with the dubious bureaucrat no longer having such a 'high ranking' position.

In the rare case that a bureaucrat should go on a deletion/vandal spree, beyond reporting it to a steward, the only thing an admin could do is damage control by restoring/rolling back edits. If the bureaucrat is going to desysop 30 admins before he starts, he might just be stopped before before he can do any damage to pages at all. Should he keep an eye on RC for admins undoing his work, that would slow him down. In either case, the bureaucrat needs to be blocked, which is something only a steward can do, regardless of the user rights of the bureaucrat.

It is more likely that an admin should go bad than a bureaucrat (this has happened frequently on en.wikt; one person repeatedly gains trust under new names so that he may delete the main page). In this case, if a bureaucrat is viewing RC, the rogue admin may be stopped swiftly.

Resolution postponed to later.

Requires community-wide review. Please discuss this issue on meta. first.

Once you got a consensus on meta., please reopen this bug.