Meta:Administrators/confirm/bureaucrat chat/July 2008

July 2008[edit]

Permission usage and interrelationships[edit]

I'm also curious about our stance on logged actions that are no longer part of that permission: I, for instance, have actions logged under centralauth-admin which were granted during that time as part of the bureaucrat permission. I know Cometstyles has certainly been active, and Majorly may have as well. Would these sorts of actions qualify as activity for bureaucrats seeking approval?

Relatedly, with our checkusers and oversights, if a user was active as a checkuser, they use the ability to see deleted revisions as part of that permission. If a user is an active checkuser, but performs no blocks or other administrative actions, it would be detrimental to their work as a checkuser if the admin permission were removed. I'd rather like to see a consensus stating that expanded rights (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, possibly others) usage count towards admin actions, lest we end up with some rather odd situations crippling the ability of that user to perform their duties. Kylu 23:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather like to see a consensus stating that expanded rights (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, possibly others) usage count towards admin actions <-- Comment: I have just removed my bureaucrat rights; I have been trying to help, but all I can see is Done. That's all. Hillgentleman 00:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. We've got some very quick, active bureaucrats, but we need others around as well. Pretend for instance that Majorly did 95% of the bureaucrat actions and everyone else was just under the activity requirements: If he was in bed with a cold for a week, we'd end up with a backlog and no bureaucrats to handle it. I don't expect that a user could have checkuser for a year and make no checks and keep the right, but if they're active on the project in other ways and simply have little work for that right, it shouldn't be held against them, either. I suspect that's when our discretion should be applied. I, for one, consider you a bureaucrat emeritus concerning these discussions. Kylu 00:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both the CU and oversight grant rights that result in no visible trace. CU allows review of the CU log (what checks were run) but not visibility to the result of the check. This is not logged. (I suppose it could be but then checking the log of who checked the log wouldn't be logged, etc :) ) Oversight allows review of what was oversighted but not visibility to the results. This also is not logged. If we end up with 3 oversighters, or just two... and one person does all the oversighting just because, for example, they happen to randomly get all the requests (it could happen if we don't get a lot of requests, and let's hope we don't)... if we are strict about enforcing activity levels, and strict about the two or none rule some wikis use (which I think is implied but I can't find in policy) we could lose both oversighters... Yet one oversighter could be performing the valuable service of reviewing what the other one is doing, even if not ever getting to oversight things "first"... but still was performing a function of the office. SO I am not comfortable with strict enforcement of activity level stuff. As a CU a fair bit of what I do is review what other people did. Ditto for Oversight (on Commons, anyway, which has enough need that we need oversighters but not so much that there are backlogs, thank goodness). ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt even enwp has backlogs for oversight work (vanishing a page's entire history not included.) Two is okay, three would be better... I'd like to see four here, but I don't know who we'd get as a fourth that'd win an election and isn't already a steward. Kylu 03:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat chat and non-bureaucrats[edit]

I've had someone ask why we've got the b'chat on a talkpage, which renders non-bureaucrats unable to comment on the b'chat on its talkpage. I'd like to propose moving the various b'chats to project space so non-bureaucrats can comment on the proceedings. Anyone mind? Kylu 02:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible to me. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, done then. Apparently there were a few people wanting to comment on our decisions. Kylu 06:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? People have opinions on wikis? !!! :) ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation results[edit]

Uncontroversial: Datrio, Edward Z. Yang, Elian, GerardM, Herbythyme, JzG, Nakon, Pathoschild, Snowdog, Suisui, Tangotango, Thogo, UninvitedCompany, Zocky

- I endorse these results as completely uncontroversial, for the record. ++Lar: t/c 00:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to be had before closure: Andrevan, Oscar

Oscar[edit]

So far, most of the comments are leading to fairly straightforward results, however the situation concerning Oscar's rights seem to be somewhat muddled:

Concerning the sysop permission, it looks (so far) to be 14/1, an easy keep.
Concerning the bureaucrat permission, I only see one removal, which would qualify as 0/1 and (lacking other input) be a removal by our rules. This is a similar situation to what I originally stated on the talkpage (With the exception that I'm not claiming that the dissenting voter is a vandal, of course.) Should we have a minimum number of removes to qualify for remove, perhaps?
Concerning the checkuser permission, 3/13/1 seems to indicate a fairly clear removal, however this stems from inactivity, which has not previously been specified as applying to checkusers. Do we change the local rules to require that permissions such as checkuser and oversight also require a certain activity level? Kylu 23:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Checkuser policy has activity requirements for CUs!! — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 11:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't notice that Oscar has crat rights too. I thus fixed my vote. Maybe next time we can add a line below each candidate's headline to state which rights s/he actually has and (before voting starts) if s/he has CU/OS also the number of logs in the past 12 months as someone did for CUs this time. --Thogo (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike: while the checkuser policy has its own minimum activity rules for checkusers, projects can set more stringent activity requirements. Kylu 08:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most projects don't have confirmation for admins though or have something similar to us, when an admin is up for confirmation, all his rights will be included such as CU, bureaucrat right or even oversight and if that person is active as an admin but not active as an oversight or CU, then though he may keep his adminship, he will lose his other rights but if that person is a crat and in the last 12 months he hasn't use that right or has barely used it, then he may lose it but with Oscar his last crat action was June 2007, which is inactive....--Comet styles 04:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to look at the opinions regarding Oscar, and both "by the numbers" (as far as I can tell) and the general feeling is that he should be removed as bureaucrat and checkuser due to lack of use, but may keep his admin rights. If I were to, as of this moment, decide based upon the discussion and taking in bureaucrat discretion, that's how I'd decide. More discussion would be good, however. Kylu 20:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who went back and clarified their votes to make clear what they were removing/keeping. I'm with Kylu, it seems pretty clear to me that the consensus seems to be keep admin, remove 'crat and CU. I'll suggest though, that if there has been a lot of nl:wp and meta crosswiki checking that letting him keep CU may be beneficial. The stats don't bear that out though so I think +A -B -CU is the right outcome. ++Lar: t/c 00:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, he is active enough to retain his sysop right but all the others i.e Crat and CU should be removed and a steward may remove them now..--Comet styles 00:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{ec} I agree with Lar, +A -B -C. Cbrown1023 talk 00:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with removal of bureaucrat, checkuser and keeping everything else — VasilievV ² 04:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Counting shows a clear result. Neither bureaucrat nor CU are even close to 75%. --Thogo (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - to avoid any miscommunication, as per these results i removed the bits myself now [1]. grtz, oscar 13:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that, and thanks for your service as well. ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan[edit]

As we already have a section (above) regarding Oscar, opinions regarding Andrevan's adminship should be made here:

I'm of the opinion that we either:

Remove adminship and suggest he request temporary adminship if he'd prefer to continue SBL work, or,
Extend his term for three months to determine if he plans to do enough SBL (or other administrative) work to continue.

Opinions, please? Keep in mind that any reasonable alternative may be considered. Kylu 20:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with both, as I said on his confirmations, his last 150 edits go back to year 2005 and his last 250 edits go back to 2003, which simply means he is neither active and looking at those trend, he will not even be that active in the near future, he has no sue for the tools and it should be removed, and when and if he becomes active again, and he wants to be an admin, then he should follow the proper normal procedure that means he has to be very active for over 3 months...--Comet styles 23:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the position that low activity level of purely admin actions is not necessarily a bar, if one is part of the community and participates in discussions, answering questions, and the like, but his overall contributions here are low and getting lower... so I concur with Cometstyles, this seems a clear remove to me. I would not opppose a temp adminship request but I think he would have to go through the discussion to see how others feel, it should not be an automatic grant. ++Lar: t/c 00:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with Lar and Comets. Cbrown1023 talk 00:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine also, of course. Preferably we can wait a day or two to let the other bureaucrats chime in on both of these cases? Kylu 00:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9/7 = 56.25%. Fair enough to remove. If he wants, he may pass through the usual RfA process later — VasilievV ² 04:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to Cometstyles and Lar, I think if he really wants to do administrative stuff, he can go to RfA and go for a temp sysopship. --Thogo (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yep, it would be the best solution--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 11:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. He doesn't match anyway according to both activity policy and consensus — VasilievV ² 12:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I arrived late... :/ Alex Pereira ^falaê 14:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

I believe that all removals have been completed and we are done with the process of this reconfirmation. Thanks to everyone who participated, and to those with permissions removed, thanks for your services on behalf of the projects. If in future your interests and activity levels increase, please consider standing again. ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]