Requests for comment/Removal of bureaucrat access from small wikis

The following request for comments is closed. Clearly no consensus. Nemo 16:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have applied for bureaucrat access, it was rejected for small wiki. Then I realized that, now we should remove all bureaucrat access from small wikis immediately. I have gone through Removal of permanent access of admins in small wikis and Removal of bureaucrats in small wikis, but every one opposed this idea, don't know why. But same community don't give me the access. So better remove all bureaucrat access from small wikis immediately for fair rule. Jayantanth (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Because it will let stewards half to death. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was a bureaucrat on four wikis (Wikimedia Commons, Chinese Wiktionary, Chinese Wikiquote, and Chinese Wikisource) and a steward, so I have found bureaucrat access from small wikis like local dictatorship of making too many non-temporary administrators and bureaucrats, while stewards would do much better job. If we keep tolerating bureaucrats on small wikis, why elect more stewards?--Jusjih (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Howan Hansi (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --RobTorgel (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Holder (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- small wikis need as well bureaucrats as the big ones. In fact they are closer to the local community and speak the language of those users, which not speak in the most of the cases englesh, French, german, dutch, or other languages which are only understood by stewards. Also a little community shall decide if it needs a bureaucrat and if he does a good job or not. That's democracy. --Les Meloures (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good arguments, Les Meloures. --Murma174 (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Joe Watzmo (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose –– Small wikis need local bureaucrats. When somebody fails at getting bureaucrat rights, it does not mean that everybody should have their bureaucrat rights removed. That argumentation seems very strange to me. -- j. 'mach' wust ☞ ☏ 15:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per LesMeloures: Small(er) wikis can and should decide themselves if they wish to have a bureaucrat or not. More often than not, they do good work. --Zinneke (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -jkb- 22:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC) no solution[reply]

Oppose --Vadgt (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Terfili (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC) local project governance is preferable to a Meta-overlord.[reply]

Oppose --Manuae (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC) as Les Meloures. It is always weird to see people thinking they don't need to convince those they want to rule. The right to have an opinion and to talk about it doesn't include having right nor to force your meaning over others.[reply]

Oppose --BBKurt (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia follows democratic rules. The removal of burocrats is against this principle. I am against it.[reply]

Oppose--Luki (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC) I am against it.[reply]

Oppose--Robby (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Every wiki should have its own bureaucrats. There are enough procedures both locally and here on meta available if a bureaucrat abuses his rights.[reply]

Oppose --Badener 20:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose --Freigut (talk) 08:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --MireilleLibmann (talk) 12:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral You must clearly state, what a small wiki is. Maybe good to distinguish between active community and practically no user base. --176.2.27.17 15:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]