Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta:Administrators/confirm/bureaucrat chat/January 2008

< Meta:Administrators | confirm | bureaucrat chat

Discussion page for bureaucrats only. Posts by non bureaucrats may be removed.

General principles

edit

Before discussing specific candidates it may be useful to discuss general principles... Meta:Administrators#Policy_for_de-adminship is written in a somewhat ambiguous way. I see some open questions (and some maybe obvious but still worth articulating) that getting closure on will help. Here they are. (we may want to refactor this, and if anyone else sees ones I missed, please feel free to add) ++Lar: t/c 16:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standing

edit

First: who has standing to "close" things... if it's clear cut, anyone clearly can do the request for de-adminning as when the steward goes to look, they see 100% opposes, so it doesn't matter who does that. But the policy doesn't explicitly say "crats have the authority to do the mechanicals".

  • This seems like a no brainer to me, by custom and convention at other wikis, this (carrying out the process) is a thing that 'crats do. I'd be very surprised if anyone says differently but it's worth mentioning. The policy ought to (after we are done) be clarified to be explicit here.++Lar: t/c 16:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree completely with this --Herby talk thyme 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Previously: October 2007, I closed (well, I requested removal of David on RFP). April and July were closed by MaxSem (not sure if it was a bureaucrat action, or steward, but he closed and desysopped). January was closed by Effeietsanders - definitely a steward. I think it should be bureaucrats closing these, and the page should be made clear to say that. Majorly (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thresholds

edit

Second: The numbers mentioned. Are they guidelines that we apply using best judgement? Or are they hard and fast rules? "the sysop may lose sysopship if support falls below 75%" ... it says MAY not MUST. Many have opined that implies discretion. Others view this as absolutely inviolate, 74.9% support would fail, and the admin must therefore be removed.

  • I'm not sure. I'd prefer to go with the consensus of the community but I can't tell what it is. Again, the policy ought to (after we are done) be clarified to be explicit here. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like a Pathoschild non voting approach and evaluate arguments more! (next time maybe) There has to be some discretion however we cannot ignore some votes because we do not like them. Policy needs sorting for sure. In practice wiki norms tend to be 'crat discretion between 70% & 80%? --Herby talk thyme 17:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd personally like to remove this process, and have admins removed after a certain length of activity. These votes are tiresome and hardly helpful for the project (and next month there will be 27 users up - a bit much I think). Majorly (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you mean activity or inactivity? ( The notion of removing an admin after a certain length of activity is an interesting one, I must say. It would force a certain amount of turnover in the ranks that some might see as beneficial... new blood and all that) Automatic removal after a certain length of inactivity would reduce the need for automatic reconfirmation, but an advantage of automatic reconfirmation proceedings is that it gives a chance to remove admins that the community feels "are active" but aren't doing the things the community thinks they should be doing. This would be a matter for the policy rewrite we are all seemingly now in favour of... (a rewrite option is, of course, "remove completely") ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oops, I meant inactivity. Say, after a year of no logs or edits. If the community have an issue with an admin, we can open a request for comment. Voting on a confirmation is a bad way to do it. Majorly (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • In this case, we must use the 75% written in the first place. We can't change it until this is over. Thus, they have both failed. Majorly (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Refer to Angela's comment early in the parent page, where she alludes to 75% being a guideline not a mandate. So it's not cut and dried that we must. But I'm coming round to the thought that it would be for the best, this time, to treat it as such, since a large number of those who commented had that expectation, and then work as a community to clarify the process to allow for 'crat discretion. ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Cary brought me to my senses. Common sense and do the right thing are more important. 75% IS a guideline, not a mandate. ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How far are you willing to ignore the guideline then? And how about Dmcdevit who had a higher % than Aphaia, should we ignore that too? Majorly (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recast that question as "How much discretion does treating this 75% as a guideline instead of a mandate give us?" I think it's a valid question. I'd say that if we accept the notion of discretion, "discretion" includes evaluating the contributions not just the numbers. Thus, someone that contributes a lot (meta is more than just this one wiki, it's something that coordinates and has influence on many things, translation, all sorts of stuff that is fairly vital) maybe gets more discretion than someone that doesn't. I am putting this out there because I'm not sure. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suffrage

edit

Third: Suffrage. Who can comment? "people will be able to vote to oppose a sysop" says nothing about suffrage requirements. Some have put forth that certain people aren't eligible, suggesting that people with few or no edits here, or people who were canvassed here, etc have no standing to comment. others have said everyone that comments has standing as long as it wasn't an IP.

  • Again, I'm not sure. I don't see consensus. If there isn't do we just call it as we see fit? That seems like a bad bad idea. Again, policy should be clarified as soon as possible. ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no consensus on who can and can't comment. It's the votes that count. Despite being inactive here, many users have voiced their opinion. We can't very well ignore them - it isn't up to us. Again, we'll have to sort this out afterwards. Majorly (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Cary brought me to my senses. Common sense and do the right thing are more important. Perhaps we should not give quite as much credence to those who have little or no participation at Meta and who were canvassed to come here. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps. Still, there were several opposers who are active here, nonetheless. We need to define what "active" is. Majorly (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we do. ++Lar: t/c 15:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope and interpretation

edit

If the crats have standing to carry out the mechanical process, but there are open questions (as above) who has standing to decide the interpretation? Do the crats? Or should the crats be bound to use the most restrictive (least favourable) interpretation of each wording (may==MUST ==> you must get a 75% support and there is no discretion... "people" == "anyone can vote")?

  • Again, I'm not sure. If we take the most restrictive interpretation of everything this time, it's all cut and dried. Is that what the community wants? Or do they want us to apply discretion? If the former, clearly we do need to at least clarify (and possibly change) things going forward for next time, as Majorly alludes to below. ++Lar: t/c 17:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation for discussion

edit

Why do these first??? I feel that getting to certain answers (possible outcomes) on these questions make the outcomes of the two admins in question obvious with no need for discussion about the admins, and getting to other answers (possible outcomes) on these questions... make the outcome of the specific admins subject to further discussion and 'crat discretion. Hence getting these answers ought to be done first. That's the more rigorous way to do it instead of launching into a discussion of the specific admins. ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific Candidates

edit

Aphaia

edit

This is a very difficult decision, obviously. I like and respect Aphaia, and I know everyone appreciates her invaluable work here on Meta, WMF wiki and many other places. I cannot, however ignore the votes of what I see as good faith from the jawiki community. Yes, even ignoring the canvassing, the vote % is not high enough to pass. A good admin needs to be able to work well with the community as well as do admin tasks. User:A.B. has stated that although he voted to keep Aphaia, it would be wrong to change the % just for this occasion. What we really need are solid guidelines of who can take part in these things and who can't, as well as discussing if 75% keep is the way to do it. Unfortunately, we cannot implement those now, because this particular reconfirmation started already. By April, the next reconfirmation time, we must have some guidelines down, both for this and RFAs, so nothing like this happens again. It saddens me a lot to say this, but I personally believe her confirmation failed. I will personally nominate Aphaia for admin when we have sorted out some voting guidelines so that we get a much fairer vote in the end. Majorly (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is bullshit. Yes, I said it, bullshit. You must take into consideration the fact that the vast majority of negative votes were canvassed offsite by people whose only interest in Meta is voting against Aphaia. Those votes must be stricken because of two base policies, "Do no harm" and "Use Common Sense." Those are what applies here. This is what's known as bureaucratic discretion. We all know that Aphaia would never survive a re-election in the current environment, so saying that "I'll nominate her myself" is futile. Cary Bass demandez 17:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If she would never survive another election, what on earth is she still doing as an admin? Majorly (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fairly well known (or widely beleived) thing that there are those that can pass initially but after they make "enemies" from doing important things or difficult things, would not pass again. That doesn't mean they are bad necessarily. But sometimes it does. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with Dmcdevit this needs drawing to a conclusion &, as with Dmcdevit, we do have some discretion. I have looked at the votes closely. I think some maybe could be discounted. I think some show some evidence of lack of good faith at best. That said - however hard I try - I am unable to come to any other conclusion without compromising my views & integrity & I will not do that. I am saddened by the inability to resolve these issues with the .ja community. I would urge her to do what she can ("Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it" - may ring a bell with some). However there is a clear view among voters and I am unable to discount many votes based on activity or similar. As such I feel that this should be closed as not confirmed with regret. I would ask that, if these rights are removed, Aphaia is swiftly granted temporary sysop access on Meta to allow her to continue with the substantial & valuable work she does and allow us time to deal with the policy for the future. Work must take place on policy before the next confirmations --Herby talk thyme 09:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have thought very long and hard about this, looking at this from multiple ways over a considerable period of time. I think we do have discretion in this. We do not have mechanically apply the 75% threshold. We do not have to count every comment, if we can clearly see that the comment was from someone with no standing here and little at their home wiki. We do have to use common sense, and we do have to do the right thing. Taking all of that into account, and as much as I wish it were different, I am forced to conclude that in the end I agree with Herby. The objections are just too strong. I also agree with Herby that we should immediately grant a temporary sysophood (there are just too many things that would go undone, and I say that hoping that Aphaia will be willing to continue under a temporary sysophood), and that we should immediately begin work on policy revisions to amek things clearler. I would also strongly advise Aphaia to try to work out the issues with those at ja:wp who feel so strongly. I recognise that this may not be a popular decision. In fact, there was no decision that would be popular. This is a tough situation but this is why 'crats are elected, not to do the easy renames and obvious sysops, which could be done by bots, but to deal with the tougher decisions, where careful evaluation of consensus and judgement are needed. With considerable regret, with apologies to Aphaia, with a fervent hope that she will try to resolve this matter, with extremely hearty thanks for the many many many things she has done over the years for the project, close as Not Confirmed. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by my earlier comment. Remove as admin, with regret. I agree to giving her admin rights to assist her work with the foundation. However, with this proposal garnering quite a bit of support, she could be granted staff flag for this work. Otherwise, as it stands, she should be removed (but then again, I don't think a steward should push the switch, only to be resysopped immediately - Aphaia should be notified of this decision, and agree to only use sysop rights as part of her job with the foundation.) Majorly (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was late in voting, but I wanted to state here my support to keep her admin. She made a good work. I like the idea of granting her temp admin rights so that she can do her job ;-) However, important point, I think we now have a real community on meta here. It was not the case when the policy for adminiship and renewal was set up (I know because I was the one who wrote it). We probably need to include a diff between real meta users and other users in term of voting weight. Should external have only an "advice" vote ? Should there vote count only half ? Should they just have no right to vote ? I dunno. But it seems quite ridiculous that the meta community is largely reliant and trustful of Aphaia, and this one can not be sysop essentially because editors we do not know, have never heard of, and are inactive at the meta level.... can prevent her from doing so. Imho Anthere 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit

edit

Total % was 70%. FloNight said that false information about his activity was posted, but I don't see where. I personally evaluated his contributions/logs and found he was not active enough for my liking. Several people did change their vote, but to assume that not everyone noticed the change is not good - I did notice, and so did Herby. With Dmcdevit saying he didn't particularly care either way, and there not being any other exceptional circumstances for him to continue adminship, I'd rather we stuck to the 75% and conclude his confirmation as failed. Majorly (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Majorly. Everyone had the opportunity to examine the contributions & I guess I have to assume that they did so - the alternative is to assume that they made up their minds without actually considering the issue which might be seen as rather insulting to them. Dmcdevit seems unconcerned and I would imagine if he wished to have admin access on Meta he would be quite active here & have a reason - if so I am sure it would be granted. --Herby talk thyme 19:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC) - struck for now - I agree with Lar that we need to be sure of the basis before the decision --Herby talk thyme 17:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment (except to note that the activity guidelines in the policy doc WERE met, that's the false information I think, and to note that people can evaluate activity any way they want, nevertheless) until general principles (above) sorted out. At that point it may well be that the answer is obvious. ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs ending and there are no other views forthcoming so I will present my thoughts. After reflection this still has to be closed as not confirmed. There was a month for people to look and express opinions. They were free to investigate any aspects they wished to. I have to conclude that they were not that interested in confirming Dmcdevit (& that he was not that bothered either). Mention has been made of activity policy. This refers to the bare minimum required to become an admin - I do not see it is important in confirmation. What is important is peoples views including those on activity. My views on this are harsh (the tools are for those doing the work - when that stops the tools should too) however I felt this a borderline case and didn't express an opinion. Others did. We do have discretion & I am happy to use it however I still find the same result --Herby talk thyme 09:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have discretion. In this case it's not warranted though, Dmcdevit isn't that active (passes the bare minimums, yes but...) and has indicated he's OK with not being confirmed. Close as Not Confirmed with thanks for services rendered. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No more comments

edit

I'm going to hold off making anymore comments here. This should have closed a while ago, and is dragging out unnecessarily. Both candidates had less than 75%, which is the current guideline. I see no reason to change things for the sake of changing things. Yes, Aphaia's RFA had a lot of people "less familiar" with Meta - but they are not unfamiliar with Aphaia, which is what really counts, in my view. Adminship is no big deal - if either candidate wants it back, they can ask via the usual method. Anyway, that's me done commenting here - I hope the other two users who have commented here can work something out soon because this is becoming tiresome. Majorly (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You canvassed several other 'crats early in the process and none of them put their views in. I did one last small try but you're right, it's time to call the question and then take the heat, if any, for doing so. Let's give it one more day but at this point absent any more input the outcome is clear to me. There is no strong consensus for discretion on things (you can make arguments that discretion is allowed, yes, but they are problemnatic, depending on "Angela said X in 2004" sorts of premises), so absent that, we have to use hard/fast rules about percentages, who has suffrage, and the like. In that set of assumptions, both confirmations fail and that is that. Better to then put more energy into rewriting the policy to give discretion and to tighten up (reasonably and fairly) who can comment on reconfirmations. ++Lar: t/c 17:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, my one last small try worked. :) And Cary's right, common sense and do the right thing are important. More important than slavish adherence to vague statements. More later but this is not concluded yet. ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this for the January 2008 confirmations

edit

Despite Anthere's comment about Aphaia, it seems there is a majority (and a rough consensus) among the 'crats commenting on this, and it is very much not a good thing to keep this open indefinitely. I suggest that this is now closed and all decisions are to be considered final at this point, no more discussion. Aphaia has stated (diff on request) she would accept a temporary sysophood so she can continue to do the valuable work she does here. Dmcdevit's permission was turned off already. The only tiny loose end is do we ask that her sysopship be turned off and then regranted, or is that just process for its own sake? In the interests of expediency I'd say we don't need to actually do that, so we are all set. Focus now should turn to nailing down the process and suffrage proposals being discussed elsewhere. ++Lar: t/c 11:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Administrators/confirm/bureaucrat_chat/January_2008&oldid=2217155"