Meta talk:Administrators/confirm/Archive 1

See Meta talk:Administrators/confirm/Archive for the archive index.

The following discussion is closed.

Closing query

Shouldn't anyone close this already? — Timi chal • 17:03, 27. Aug 2006

status to be confirmed in July 2006

Why are Nichtich (50% support / 2:2 votes) and Waerth (43% support / 3:4 votes) still sysops today??? Their support fell under the mark of 75%. --Marbot 21:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a set limit of 75%. The page states that voting "keep" isn't necessary since that's the default case. Only those with almost no support will be removed. Angela 16:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I see how many people thought that the default case "keep" applies to Nichtich or Waerth? So far I can only see that there is a tie between supporters and opposers --Marbot 18:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closure?

Shouldn't anyone close it already? If I recall correctly we open it over three months ... specially for people who should have been confirmed in 2006/Q4, it is long enough to be examined. --Aphaia 22:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Whenever else it "ends" I hope it isn't March 2006 - otherwise I'm time traveling! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you. --.anaconda 14:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duration of vote

I was bold, and made the duration, after a non-existing date (june 31) was given, to one month. No duration has been mentioned in Meta:Administrators#Policy_for_de-adminship. I suggest for future votes to lower it even further to two weeks. (i.e. 1-14 of the month) People who have objections can express them still. But I find it a bit ridiculous that admins are 1/4 of the time on vote... Effeietsanders 18:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rule of confirmation says it durates three weeks, I don't oppose to extend, if it is based on a precendent discussion. Now it isn't and I think three weeks are enough confirm existing all admins (a bit different the rule says). I agree three months vote makes no sense. --Aphaia 02:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the rules on Meta:Administrators#Policy_for_de-adminship? I can actually not finding those three weeks even. Could you please point me to it? </ashamed mode> Effeietsanders 18:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two months seems too long. Two weeks seems too short. I'd favour a month I think. ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<ashamed mode>Sorry I made two misunderstanding: 1) the part I thought as rule was not, it was exactly one editor's idea about procedure added to the existing rule on the confirmation, while it was not opposed, it could hardly be considered as a rule set in stone. See this revision (the first confirmation on meta]), and at that time the proposed duration was one week (later others were confirmed, so the entire duration would be three weeks or around.)</ashamed mode>.

I agree on that two months are a bit long. I prefer a shorter duration, and one month seems to me fine. --Aphaia 02:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

We may want to add a link to archives in the header (if there are some) or create them (if there aren't) as we do for other pages. ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are archives, but this is a good idea. Majorly (hot!) 15:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly ought to be something --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually digging out all the requests is a fair bit of work but an interim would be to put together an archive that pointed to the various entries where the confirmation votes were removed as being over as a list of diffs or something. ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. For further discussion: The best would be to have regular sysop elections in the same archive as the confirmations, wouldn't it? --Thogo (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, or crosslinked somehow to make them easy to find. Good work, thanks! ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elections and confirmations are on the same archive page on Wikisource; see s:Wikisource:Administrators/Archives. Maybe we could do something like this, although we might need to have several merged archives if one would be too big on Meta. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:27:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I think of a system where every admin has his/her own page (with the original election and all confirmations) which could just be included like a template into the confirmation page (with noinclude tags around the archived polls). I could make an example page so that one can discuss the system in a less abstract way. ;o) On WM:A one could then link this archive pages to the admins' names in the left-hand chronological list. And the existing archive index pages of both RfA and Confirm pages could be used as an overview. What do you think about that? --Thogo (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation schedule

Btw., due to the change from 3 months to 1 month we should decide which month of the quartals it should be. I suggest to take the first month of any quartal, thus the polls done in May are those being scheduled for July, and we should not start to do the next series in July but in October. (And I've read the idea to shorten the confirmation time again to two weeks, we should IMHO finally discuss and decide that until the next confirmation series starts.) --Thogo (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of quarters, for two weeks is my opinion. Cbrown1023 talk 21:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Thogo (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about confirmation (lasting one month) one year after the last election for that user? This is the system used on en-Wikisource, and it has worked pretty well so far (see administrators policy, confirmations). Since I was elected in July 2006, I would be confirmed in August 2007, September 2008, October 2009, et cetera. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:15:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This has always puzzled me - an RfA last a week, confirmation a month? Two weeks would seem plenty, am I missing something obvious here, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A month simplifies scheduling (by rounding everything off to the next month) and gives everyone plenty of time to stumble across the vote and comment. There's no rush; administrators being confirmed don't need to wait. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 07:22:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's true... But the system is really confusing that confirmations wander around in the year. I think if you were elected in July 2006, you should be confirmed in July every year. That makes it more mentally accessable (at least for me)... ;o) But I agree that we should maybe give up the quarter idea and should go to the polls every month. --Thogo (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two weeks of the quarter in which the admin has been elected for the last time (not changing with confirmation) would be easy too. So if you are elected in feb 2005, you would be confirmed in the first two weeks of jan 2006, the first two weeks of jan 2007, the first two weeks of jan 2008 etc. Second quarter would be april-june etc. That is used in nl.wikipedia I think. Is not very hard either... I think that was as well how it was intended, seeing the schedule. Please not every month new confirmations, makes it only noisy. Just every three months a confirmation for a bunch, and the rest of the time it will be silent here :) Two weeks will be plenty of time, especially as you can plan it. Effeietsanders 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're concerned about too much activity, I think we should look at the en-Wikisource system again, which functions in two steps. Once a year, there is an automatic preliminary vote. If an inactive administrator fails the vote, they're automatically desysop'd. If an active administrator fails (with at least three votes), a confirmation vote is held on the main administrator page.

The benefits of this system are twofold:

There is no need to vote at all, unless you want to oppose.
It's impossible for someone to accidentally fail a vote because most users don't watch the confirmation page and the user's enemies make sure to. When an active administrator's access is in question, everyone knows and can vote.

—{admin} Pathoschild 03:44:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. The only counterargument that one could see is that the total number of elections will increase, but that will occur anyway parallel to the number of sysops... --Thogo (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of votes should remain relatively stable (active administrators are very rarely desysop'd, so there should be very few second votes), so the system should virtually eliminate the need to ever vote. —{admin} Pathoschild 14:10:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would support looking carefully at the Wikisource system, looks like a good idea --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. However I think there's merit in making it happen once a quarter by doing the appropriate rounding. IIRC 'source now uses monthly? ++Lar: t/c 01:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; see the confirmation schedule. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:23:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Never thought I would thank for beeing desysoped

I just found myself desysoped - a good sign that there is now an active meta-community keeping an eye on the action (or non-action in my case)! :-) When tidying up please keep in mind that there are many very-low-edit accounts that do not read their discussion pages so before deleting lots of stuff better try to contact the user via other ways/wikis. Thanks for your work! -- Nichtich 19:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation page was linked from meta RC and also WM:RFA. I have no problem in current regulation and find no point how such contact help the situation. The regular confirmation has been a part of meta sysop policy before you were promoted, and you could have known when you would confirmed. --Aphaia 05:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can set it in your preferences to be e-mailed when this page is changed or you could just mark your calendar that the confirmation is being done whenever. Of course, if you had been active, you wouldn't have been desysopped. :) Also, I doubt if you had been contacted and you posted here that it would do any good, you obviously were inactive and people felt you no longer needed the tools. Cbrown1023 talk 20:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read this (could be wrong) that Nichtich is just cautioning about deletion of things rather than commenting on his/her own desysop situation. It's not always possible to be extra double specially sure that someone gets notified but certainly for a good contributor it may be worth at least trying to contact them, if it's not too onerous, before deleting stuff. That said, my read of our process of deletion here is that we do tend to go the extra mile and give the benefit of the doubt, sometimes for years... Apologies if I am all wet as to what was meant. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, point taken. And perhaps both you are right. Deletion requests from relatively newer people tend to go even beyond the deletion policy. Even if there is no talks, old pages might have historical interests for some people, it is therefore worthy to note that. --Aphaia 11:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For deletion of pages rather than admin removal, history is an important factor. We do need to remember that the early days here are part of a project that is of historic significance for the internet and ensure that we don't accidentally erase the history of its evolution. Jamesday 20:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from project page

I do understand now... The previous vote was noted closed. I thought it was the april one. Actually, it was the july one !!! We are in advance of 3 months guys !!!!! (amazing). Sorry for the confusion; Anthere

Whoa, I've never realized that was July one either! Oh, so we confirmed april one in the first trimester. LOL. See you all in October, guys and girls. --Aphaia 09:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't vote keep if no-one has voted remove yet"

This seems a bit odd to me; what if you just want to express your support should someone vote "remove"? Can someone please clarify the reasoning behind this? Cheers ----Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea is that this process is an opportunity to raise concerns about admins rather than to pat them on the back of their continued good work. Of course this does require users to continue to follow proceedings which isn't ideal. Adambro 17:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd change it to "you don't have to vote keep..." instead of "don't vote keep..." ++Lar: t/c 19:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements for voters

Dear all, I am very concerned that users without any background on meta can vote on this and we could loose admins we need here badly, I doubt that someone not active on this project can evaluate the work and activity of users here (I would also not go to other projects where I am not active and vote for desysop of users there)

I would like to hear Your opinions on this, imho this should apply here also for the future, thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 13:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be the same as adminship requirements. (If you're worried about Aphaia, any votes regarding Japanese Wikipedia, or from editors not active here will be discounted.) Majorly (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - how can you "discount" any particular segment of voters I wonder if they meet some criteria? One of the least democratic concepts I have come across on the foundation --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The confirmation is about admin activity on Meta. Other places where Aphaia works (or doesn't) should have no bearing here. It's unnecessary to bring up her ban on Japanese Wikipedia, as it's nothing to do with Meta. And since when do we allow people to vote who are not active in this community? No other community would allow it (apart from, perhaps Commons). Majorly (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out by Spacebirdy the voter requirement needs review (& "no" Actions not taken on Meta should not be raised in the context of a Meta confirmation). However if the voter qualifies you cannot exclude on the basis that they are of a specific community --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that these type of voters can have legitimate concerns that need to be brought to the attention of meta regulars even though I disagree with them in this particular instance. I think it is best to allow these votes so that we have the most complete discussion possible. We need to have confidence that the meta community will make the right choice based on complete information. FloNight 14:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the best thing we can do is that for those people who oppose, they must give a valid explanation as to why they are opposing and if their concerns are related to something done by that admin on Meta, (might have to rewrite the confirmation voting policy for this) then that vote should be counted but if it is regarding some mishap on some other wiki , then it should obviously be discounted since this confirmation is for admin tasks done on this wiki rather than all other wikis in general..--Comet styles 12:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There still should be an "edits" requirement. Members of this community should be the ones dealing with this community's issues - admin confirmation is exactly that - a local community issue --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an edit requirement, particularly for people who are voting to remove, but every user who has an account is a member of the community and can comment as they please. Majorly (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would feel that if I see enough of a particular editor at Wikisource to feel confident that this person is responsible and trustworthy, then as long as I'm satisfied that it's the same person here, and as long as the meta community is satisfied that Cowardly Lion at meta really is Cowardly Lion at Wikisource, my opinion should count. With only a handful of edits at, say, Wikipedia and Wikinews, I probably wouldn't vote in an RfA at one of those projects, and if I did, I wouldn't expect my vote to be given a lot of weight. But am I wrong in thinking that while Wikisource exists to build a great free library, and Wikipedia exists to build a great free encyclopedia, and Wiktionary exists to build a great free dictionary, meta has no purpose in its existence except to serve the other projects? If I'm correct in that, then as long as an admin candidate is reasonably active at meta, I would say that their suitability could be determined from their work at other projects, and people familiar with them at other projects should be considered qualified to comment on their suitability for adminship here. Cowardly Lion 18:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you exclude the users who is active in other projects than the Meta-Wiki. I'm one of the Japanese who doesn't use English in daily life. But, I have at least 1000 valid contributions on the JPWP. And I am interested in the admin ~~election~~confirmation of Meta-Wiki. Because we are comrades of the WikimediaProject. --[[Utilisateur:Law soma|Law soma]] [[Discussion Utilisateur:Law soma|D]] [[Special:Contributions/Law_soma|C]] 03:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)--Law soma 01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)I corrected.[reply]

This is not an admin election. Majorly (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. This is not an admin election. --Law soma 01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regained sysop bit

Hi you may know Naconkantari is back from his break and Majorly gave him the sysop right. I personally think it uncontroversial, but I realized we have no written rule in this case either. Also a question came up to my mind - when will he be a subject of confirmation?

There are some possible options I think:

Just put him in the next round (April 2008)
Just put him in the round which he may have entered if he had not stepped down. (in this case, July 2008, archives say)
Hell no, have him request for adminship again formally on WM:RFA.

Three ways each have their merits and demerits. In this particular case, #1 may sound excessive. But it works in case the returning sysop returned stepped down over one year before and hence skipped his reconfirmation during his break. Same may applies Option 3 (asking for nomination again), even if it sounds more b'cratic and formalistic, and looks waste of time (we lose the opportunity to see him serve this project even for a week).

In this particular case I emotionally prefer Option 2, while, as said, it may not work for the sysops who take a longer break than one year. Also it is not as simple as option 1 and 3, both of which relieve us to count when the request for confirmation should begin on him.

I may miss some more possible treatments. Thanks for your addition as well as feedback. And please do not forget to welcome him :) --Aphaia 00:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's now User:Nakon. Well, I put him back in July 2008, as that's when he was made one originally (June 2006). I think for all non-controversial cases, that would be the fairest way of doing it. For more controversial cases, the user should go through RFA again. Let's hope there are no such cases to deal with. Majorly (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we have no precedent at all for regaining bits voluntarily given up, (do we? Is Nakon the first?) I think a bit of discussion first before granting would have been good. I would expect a broad consensus for regranting if there was no controversy, but to just give it back without at least checking first might be considered a rash action by some. When it is obvious what consensus will be there is no harm in confirming it... and when it is not obvious, to just act is not right. As for reconfirmation, I think if the admin skipped theirs by being not an admin, the very next one possible is what it should be, but if not, just the regular time is good enough. ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is maybe a loose end. ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On enwiki, admins are given back their rights without any discussion at all, if it was simply having a break, as this user was. Why the hell do you want a discussion? Just for the sake of having one? Give me a break, please! It isn't rash, it's called common sense: use it some time. In this case, Nakon was blatantly not controversial, so I gave it back. He should not have to beg the community for what is rightfully his, nor should there be any needless discussion over it. Thank you, and goodnight. Majorly (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to dial back the invective a bit there, seriously. This isn't en:wp and it's reasonable to ask whether discussion is needed or not, or whether notice is needed or not since it's new territory. I think it's reasonable to ask, specifically, when was the bit turned off, and when was it turned back on, to guide thinking on when confirmation should happen? Skipping a confirmation seems a bit off, if that's what happened. More generally, your acting unilaterally on things without even letting the community know about what you were asked to do is really not a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did not skip reconfirmation, so your point is irrelevant. He'll be having it at the same time he would be normally. Please stop with the "you're too fast" rubbish as well... what is reality is you are too slow. Thank goodness no one else follows your rules around here, otherwise we'd be waiting forever for things to happen. Majorly (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to dial back the invective a bit there, seriously. Asking questions and seeking consensus is legitimate and to be encouraged. There is no deadline. ++Lar: t/c 23:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a deadline, actually, and I respect it. Asking questions is all well and good, but when it's just for the sake of asking questions, as in this case, it makes me wonder what your purpose is. A bureaucrat's job is to judge whether there is consensus for a user to be promoted. In an RfA, that is when the vote reached a set number, discounting sockpuppets etc. In other cases, the bureaucrat uses their best judgement. Recently, I had to undergo a rather unpleasant experience on enwiki, where I was subject to discussion after asking for my sysop bit back. It's an incredibly unpleasant experience (much like editing on meta at the moment), and I was not particularly willing to put someone who voluntarily resigned through that for no reason whatsoever, other than the fact some bureaucrat who never uses his tools wants to ask some pointless questions. Did you really think I'd just promote him without the slightest bit of thought? I'm offended that you did. Majorly (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Majorly— we don't need to spark a community discussion for every little issue. My suggestion would be to simply do it, and leave a note somewhere relevant that it was done. If there are actually any valid objections, they can be said then. That is the traditional wiki method: edit, and only discuss if you're uncertain or there are objections. That said, I do think Majorly should calm down a bit and take things less personally. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 01:02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Where was the "note somewhere relevant" left, because that seems a very good idea. The reset on the bit happened 8 January, for reference. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Majorly actually did that in this case; it's only my suggestion for the future. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:37:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would insert him into the same month he was in when he resigned too. If a future admin misses it, I'd insert them into the next scheduled confirmations instead and go from there. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:05:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For next time round...

For next time round, should we include other access rights the user has, and vote on those too? (Obviously not steward, but ones like checkuser, if elected and bureaucrat). Majorly (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. I feel that on Meta we should be confirming or otherwise any elected rights. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I thought admin confirmation includes other rights' ones since we have no users who have other access(es) without adminship ... but I admit there is nothing written down. It would be an idea to make it clear how we treat other user rights which are locally given. --Aphaia 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support all rights (A,B,C, and O but not S which has its own process) being reconfirmed at one time, regardless of when gained, for ease of use. (I think this is being discussed on Meta:Babel as well?) ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree, if we don't think users should have admin rights then the implication is that the community doesn't think they should have "higher" rights either whether or not this is explicitly stated. I'd suggest that this is taken to be the case for this round but it should be noted on the page in future. Adambro 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I misspoke or was unclear, I think the confirmation should be all at once, but the comments divided up as the commentors see fit. I can envision scenarios in which someone would want people to not be an admin but still be CU (wacky yes, but I know of at least one wiki that has a CU that is not an admin) and every other possible permutation of keeps and removes. it's not an opinion I would advance myself, but it is one we should allow. That is, make it explicit and divisible, not implied. ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing?

The confirmation ran for more than two weeks now, and there seems to be 100% (or nearly so) consensus with most of them. Maybe these can be closed by a bureaucrat? --Thogo (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it will be closed on January 31st :) ..--Comet styles 11:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I agree with you - however others seem not to? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About a week ago, I looked through the past Admin/confirms to see the usual length. I saw that most ran for at least one month. I was hoping for shorter but since that is the precedent I think it should not be changed midstream. There are good reasons for keeping it open longer than 2 weeks and really no good reasons for closing sooner than one month. FloNight 12:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I guess nothing will change anymore in the next two weeks. Anyway, we will see. :o) --Thogo (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a compromise of three weeks? We can see what the results are probably anyway. Majorly (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, better not, they will probably beat you. ;p --Thogo (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Dear all, I would suggest to add the following note to the header of the page: Note: Votes of people who are not entirely active on Meta will be ignored. to avoid outside canvassing in further elections. (And I would also suggest to ignore such votes in this confirmation.) Saludos cordiales, --Thogo (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"not entirely" seems ambiguous. "not very" might be clearer, oddly enough. But see also just above, there are arguments put forth for not disregarding those who are active elsewhere. (I'm not sure I agree with them, just want to point them out) ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we make a clear note on Meta:Requests for adminship and Meta:Administrators/confirm? Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 12:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Yes, maybe... I'm not a native en speaker (luckily), so I didn't notice that ambiguity. >;O) --Thogo (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(double ec!) I'd be happy to see a "qualification" to allow voting (and to apply to RfAs as well) - 50 edits - not including userspace for example? Obviously this would not apply to foundation wide elections such as Stewards. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst agreeing that active Meta editors should primarily be the ones to have their say, I think this could be quite a dangerous reaction to the situation with jp wiki editors. I think we'd have to be very careful to ensure that any criteria is not intended to suppress opposition of the user in questions confirmation but stopped the confirmation from being too influenced by users not active here and so not familiar with the user's work here. However, I'd suggest in this particular case, being banned from a WMF project is very serious and whilst I'm unable to understand Japanese and so figure out what went on for myself, these concerns have to be treated seriously and not appear to be swept under the carpet. It is worth noting that this probably wouldn't have been raised if these new users were in support, its only really because it goes against the opinion of a reasonable number of the Meta community. This discussion should not be allowed to effectively turn into the confirmation or otherwise of this user and the criteria should be determined accordingly. How are we going to set a criteria? Are we having a vote? Who is allowed to have their say? ;) Adambro 12:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for Japanese Wikipedia thought on banning, I must add two things for your consideration:

They are too casual to ban editors both registered and anons in my opinion. It frequently happens a sysop ban a ranged IP indefinitely. Also it happens a sysop banned a user with a decent amount of edit history not only indefinitely but on sight. Banning and blocking is much lighter there, sadly.
And for this particular vote, a canvassing seems to be going on. See user talk:Guillom for more information. I didn't give a close look, but it may have happened: User:Alexsh, zhwiki sysop once informed me their canvassing on the same website for stewards elections. --Aphaia 15:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Meta serves all projects and to an extent belongs to all projects. At the same time, Meta is different and I don't want to see junior editors from elsewhere popping up. I suggest that we require a low edit threshold on Meta (15 edits) ... but a stiff threshold elsewhere for those without Meta experience: say adminship on another project or perhaps not adminship but 4000 edits.

I think there may be some confusion on jp.wikipedia that a meta admin is some sort of super-admin. A steward really does have cross-wiki powers but a meta admin does not. (See my analogy about a building maintenance supervisor at UN headquarters^[1] -- it's not like meta admins sit on the Security Council).

As for canvassing, I'm against it, but I'm not sure the en.wikipedia anti-canvassing rule applies here. Didn't this issue come up already in some RfA in the last year? What was the precedent there? --A. B. ^(talk) 16:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As A.B. states in above comment, there may be some confusions in Japanese Wikipedia to take meta admin as super-admin. However, if such misunderstanding exists, it is because of Aphaia herself. She continuouslly utilized meta adminship, election committee status, etc. as the "title" to act as if she were "the boss" of Japanese Wikipedia community, while she is not even an admin of jawp, and told us to follow her "order". This was an example. There, she told to obey her because she is "the chief of election committee" (Note: Euphemism was used there, so machine translation will not work). If someone criticises her, then she try to shut them out, by tabbing them "vandalism", etc., like this. I do not know whether she is "the chief" of the election committee, but at least she is not "the chief" of jawp community. As she kept doing similar things for more than three years, such misunderstanding may have been fostered in jawp community, if it exists. Yassie 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aphaia, please read and translate this.

ちょっとひどくないですか。そうやって、自分の味方がいそうな場所では自分の主張が正しいとみせかけようとするから、あなたの言動は不実だと言われるんです。情報操作だとも、嘘つきだとも、権威主義だとも言われるんです。

Removeに投票した利用者のほとんどすべてが、日本語コミュニティでいくばくかの貢献をしている者であることを、いまここで説明しなさい。あなたがそれをしなさい。説明したら、あとは黙っていてください。 --Hatukanezumi 17:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How come are you requesting that above? I do NOT think Aphaia will do it by herself. Yassie 23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aphaia claims "canvassing", but we are NOT canvassing at all. We are all stating the fact. This is exactly what Aphaia had been doing in Japanese Wikipedia; shut out any criticisms onto her by tabbing them "vandalism", "personal attack", "canvassing", bruh, bruh, bruh, ...

Also, Aphaia was very the person who made blocking and banning casual in Japanese Wikipedia. Please see this. This was the case that Aphaia requested block (actually re-block) on an admin's talk page, without even submitting RfB, simply because she did not like that user name. In fact, this was the user whom Japanese Wikipedia community decided to unblock as a result from more than 20 of supporting unblocking.

Oh, for information about my editing "career" in Japanese Wikipedia, please see this. You will see I have 6000+ edits there, as of 23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC). Those 6000+ edits include translations of en:Minneapolis, Minnesota (ja) and en:Cleveland, Ohio (ja), both of which are featured articles in English Wikipedia. I am currently working on another big one, which is also a featured article in enwp. As I stated on the voting page, almost all users who cast "remove" votes on this admin election, "oppose" votes in her steward election, and/or "support" votes in her RfBs (those were submitted twice) in jawp have similar, or at least some contributions in some extent. Yassie 23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yassie, I was not questioning your number of edits, merely stating what I think our criteria should be. Please note that I actually suggested a lower threshold for Meta edits than others were recommending then also offered an option for those without any meta experience to participate if they had in-depth experience elsewhere.

I think a consensus is emerging, however, for a higher number than I proposed. It would still be a low number of Meta edits -- probably 50 -- so as to ensure participants have some minimal experience with the way Meta works. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There will be a major Meta re-write on all policies on Meta soon just like the one we are having now for the Stewards policy, and most of these policies goes way back (when wikipedia was just a baby..aww..) and it seems they all have to be updated and further clarified so that people actually understand how Meta works and regarding all the 'stuff' we do on Meta..--Comet styles 01:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stated the number of edits and some details of contributions because Aphaia claimed none of those who casted "remove" votes are entrusted in Japanese Wikipedia. She told a lie on the voting page, so I stated the fact in detail.

For voting requirements, while I admit this may be based on proper reasons, I fear that that requirement is used as the "tool" in order that Aphaia shuts out considerable numbers of "oppose" votes, mainly from jawp users, towards her. Yassie 01:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what she said as a lie, but more of a Personal point of view which may or may not be true, but as mentioned so many times the confirmation is for her work on meta and meta only and contributions to other wikis doesn't really matter. Please stop seeing Meta as heaven and admins here as guardian angels of all wikis, we are nothing really ;) ..I would like too ask all those from the jawp who opposed her for what she may or may not have done on jawp, too look that her contributions here and tells us about anything you may disagree with and comment on that not about what happened on jawp...thanks..--Comet styles 02:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand adminship is just a technical, logical access issue. I also understand meta is not a heaven, and meta admins are not guardian angels. Rather I think this is how Aphaia has used meta and her meta adminship, while she is none of those really in fact. Yassie 02:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is, our policy says "Admins will keep their access if there are no votes, or more than 75% keeps." It doesn't say they lose it if there are less than 75%. So it behoves the bureaucrat who processes this confirmations to decide. >8O) --Thogo (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! you're right. But how about a statement "You don't have to vote keep if there is no remove yet"? --Hatukanezumi 14:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is some bureaucrat judgement involved. However, unless the community decides on a minimum criteria then the opposes from not very active users cannot simply be ignored. Even if they do, it's somewhat questionable to impose some criteria whilst the confirmation is ongoing as a response to an admin getting opposed anyway. Adambro 17:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the one with less than 75% of "keep" vote is not de-sysoped, then what does it really mean by Admins will keep their access if there more than 75% keeps? :<) Yassie 23:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means that people with 75% or higher ratio are by no means desysoped. --Thogo (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does my post sound satirical? If so, sorry for my naive Engrisyu. Although, I seem that there are no gain to discuss about 75% threathold :-