Meta talk:Requests for adminship/Nemo bis (removal)/Bureaucrat discussion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Numerically, it looks like 11 votes for remove, 7 votes for keep. That's about 39% supporting keep. According to Meta:Administrators, 75% support is required to become an administrator. Even if we discounted some of the troll votes (for lack of a better term), we'd probably be left at only 50% supporting keep. Hmmm. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Cf. Kylu. --Nemo 07:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC) P.s.: I've written enough during the request because some said I wasn't communicative; I suppose and hope I don't have to say anything in this phase, unless requested by bureaucrats.
Wasn't Kylu just offering his or her opinion? Seventy-five percent is an extremely high threshold. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: I count 12 remove votes (SarekOfVulcan, Michaeldsuarez, Beeblebrox, Ottava Rima, Mathonius, Rschen7754, Courcelles, Rd232, Guido den Broeder, Tarc, Kevin, and Jamesofur), one "neutral, leaning towards remove" vote (Snowolf), one "All that is undeniably wrong. Not sure if it is enough to remove" comment (Teles), one "I'm not sure how to vote here" comment (MZMcBride), and 7 keep votes (MF-Warburg, Billinghurst, Frigotoni, Russavia, Vituzzu, Steinsplitter, and Micki). If Snowolf' vote ("leaning towards remove") is counted as "remove" and Teles' comment ("not sure if it is enough to remove") and MZMcBride's comment ("I don't feel like Meta-Wiki adminship is the real issue here") are counted as "keep" , then it's 13:9 (59:41). Less than half of the community has confidence in Nemo. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Mine was keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed that. Correction: 13:10 (57:43). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
As I didn't say "keep" or something similar, my comment should be read as neutral.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 20:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. It's probably best if a bureaucrat were to examine the opinions and information on that page anyway. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
IMO, it is ridiculous to suggest that a user should require 75% support to gain adminship, but only need 25% to keep it... And on the topic of bureaucrats, meta supposedly has 17 bureaucrats that have the "job" of closing these requests. Where are they? Maybe meta needs some new 'crats who do anything? Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Has someone told the other bureaucrats of a bureaucrat discussion? Is there some sort of bell we ring or smoke signal we send up? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Nemo_bis_(removal)/Bureaucrat_discussion. MarcoAurelio left a message on Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This, rather. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, that was helpful. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Closed too soon[edit]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nemo_bis&diff=5342793&oldid=5342764 – Does anyone believe that the discussion was closed too soon? The discussion lasted less than a week. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no rule on how long bureaucrat discussions on meta need to be open. -Barras talk 15:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand that there isn't a rule. I was merely concerned about fairness. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Opinions of bureaucrats were very clear, they were all requested to comment here in their user pages. So, there is no point on waiting if result is clear. I also can't see a reason on prolonging 'this' conversation more than the necessary.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 06:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, I can't see any reason that the close should be considered premature. If there are 17 crats here, getting a unanimous decision from five of them seems like more than enough input to go ahead and close. In fact I would say that this entire process is an example of what meta should be more like, the community had it's say over the course of the week, the crats carefully considered the results and, although they had many nioce things to say about the subject of the discussion they respected the community's input and acted in accordance with it. Regardless of what the discussion was about or what anyone's preferred outcome was that is the way things ought to work more often around here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It was and still is my opinion that the vote was premature, and it was unfair to bring in all the different issues in that manner. I am not talking about the crats decision but the vote itself. It is not common to have removal votes on Meta, I don't recall seeing this before, or ever? When you are asking the community if a trusted admin for years needs to be stripped of his flag, the process itself should be more refined and better communicated. We don't exactly follow en.wp's lead on everything here. The process was initiated by an irregular user who generally isn't very active on meta, then it included involved editors and gave a platform for everyone who felt Nemo ever did anything wrong over the course of years, and just galvanized it in to one vote. I'm not sure if the involved parties should also be leaving messages like this in a vote of this kind - [1]. My opinion might have been colored by my own absence from seeing this, and a lot of admins I know who have worked with Nemo for years also did not weigh in. I guess it's disappointing to see the standing built up over the years and a long body of work for an admin, can be stripped so quickly without a majority of his peers weighing in. It's debatable how much the actual community weighed in on this one. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"I'm not sure if the involved parties should also be leaving messages like this in a vote of this kind - [2]." I believe that you misinterpreted what SarekOfVulcan said. I believe that SarekOfVulcan had the same concern that MZMcBride had. I believe that SarekOfVulcan was only asking Russavia to clarify his !vote. If you didn't misinterpreted what SarekOfVulcan said, can you please explain why you feel uncomfortable with SarekOfVulcan asking users to clarify their positions? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I do see a great deal of difference between someone remarking the ambiguous nature of some of the votes on the associated talk page for the request itself, and the person who initiated the Request leaving individual messages for those that voted to "change their vote". I understand what the intention might have been - to clarify - but as far as non-native grasp of the english language and already attached ambiguity goes - it might also be construed otherwise. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflicted)Sure, I can clarify. I am not a native english speaker, along with the majority of users here. The intent of Sarek's message required a re-examination for me to discern, others might have a weaker grasp. I would have still preferred if someone other than him, possibly an uninvolved admin or a crat left that message, one might insinuate something other than intended. Anyway, that would have been the ideal conduct in this case. Theo10011 (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Billinghurst clarified his or her stance and expressed appreciation. Billinghurst and Russavia are native speakers of English. The language issue that you're concerned about didn't occur, and I don't believe that average users such as SarekOfVulcan should be held to the high standards of "what if". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't asking them to change their !votes, but merely to rephrase them so that it didn't look like they were supporting the bit removal, rather than supporting Nemo's continuing adminship. I believe that was clear from my phrasing, when I specifically said that my concern was that it looked like they were saying one thing but meaning another. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's how I read your talk page notes as well and I appreciate you taking the time to get those votes clarified.

Theo: adminship is no big deal. :-) There was a community vote followed by a bureaucrat discussion, both of which were very clear here. I agree with you that better (clearer) guidelines for the de-adminship process should be considered. Perhaps a good goal for 2013. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sarek - I understand, I knew your intention. Ya, MZ we should def. lock down some guidelines for this soon. Theo10011 (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand you are disappointed with having missed the discussion itself and not having had the opportunity to put your own view forward. However, in terms of timing and communication, I don't agree there were any problem. The request was transcluded onto Meta:Requests for adminship, with a clear edit summary, with the discussion itself opened for over 10 days before being put on hold for the crat discussion. If the request was for +sysop rather than the other way round, and someone who's against the candidate missed an RFA that's opened for 10 days, people will just say "tough". -- KTC (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not saying that my own personal disappointment isn't mixed into this, but there's a lot of things that irked me about this. First, it is not common to have these removal votes on Meta, the ratio of support/oppose wasn't exactly laid in stone before closing this either. The request was initiated by an irregular user on Meta, not a currently active community member, then Nemo wasn't informed directly by the person initiating the request but someone else, then it started with one RfC closure and whatever fallout that originated from that, it also gave a platform for people who really might not have had that strong of an opinion about Nemo to air their grievances, but piled on top of it all. A few of the people voting against Nemo had been blocked by him or had some past grievance, and this gave them the opportunity to "get even" - it just snowballed. I would have preferred if more active community members looked at the issue in question and gave their opinion - a few did - as did the people involved in disputes with him - I guess I would have preferred more neutral voices from the local community here looking at the evidence. From a larger picture point-of-view it all didn't seem very respectable to me. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The users with grievances have the most experience with Nemo's wrongdoings. I believe that their participation made the discussion richer. In my opinion, Nemo's actions against Beeblebrox and Delicious carbuncle indicate that Nemo is the one who acts on grudges, and a sysop pursuing a grudge is more of a danger than a non-sysop pursuing a grudge. The participation of multiple users with grievances show that there were multiple incidences and, in my opinion, a pattern of misbehavior by Nemo bis. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
These more active community members Theo refers to had ten days to comment, nobody was stopping them. This community is not particularly effective in many cases at policing abuses by one of their own regulars, that is rather the crux of this whole thing. It certainly would be nice if the community engaged more in discussions relating tohow this site is afdministered, and finding a way to make that happen is a laudable goal. However, there was nothing improper about this process that I can see. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Michael, maybe, but if only blocked users had the majority in voting for removal of an admin, we'd either have no blocked user or no admins. Every admin can be challenged after a block, that's why its better to ask another admin to look at the case impartially. Grudges can exist on both sides, admins can be guilty of it, but blocked users are also as likely to be driven by it and vote against someone whose otherwise has a decent history. In a better world, we'd have no grudges, but we do.
Beeblebrox, I know the allotted time was standard as any other vote, and technically there wasn't anything wrong with this. But this being one of the few de-adminships on meta and all those tiny things combined together just didn't make it sit right with me. It's not something I can point to and say that was wrong, but just small things I mentioned above. I hope that future issues get more participation from other admins and community members. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Of the !voters, Nemo bis was only involved in the blocks of Guido den Broeder and Beeblebrox. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't we pay more attention to the arguments put forward during this RfDA rather than to the persons expressing those arguments? In other words, isn't what they say more important than who they are? Mathonius (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been disconnected a couple of days and I've just seen this, so I'll comment now. If the community believes that the closure was innapropiate for whatever reason I have no objections if it is reversed. Theo is right, and I mentioned it in the crat chat page, that we had just 2 formal request for de-adminship (3 with this). In the previous two we had unanimity in the removal of bits. It was not the same this time so I opened the crat chat page so bureaucrats could comment on everything (procedure and comments). I sent mails, I sent a message with a bot and I posted a message on the RFH board and the only I could get was the opinion of 5 bureaucrats (amazing, isn't it?). The vote itself was transcluded in Meta:RFA and in {{votings}} (which advertises it in Special:RecentChanges) and was opened for longer than 7 days. I hope to see no more RfDAs in the future, but I do suggest the Meta-Wiki folks to start drafting a clear community desysop policy with clear procedures, thresholds, etc. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I know I'm responding late but I just happened to glance over this - my apologies for missing the comment period, I was going to comment on the same day you closed the crat chat in the afternoon my time (I was travelling that day from what I recall) but missed it by a couple of hours. Nonetheless my comments would have been along similar lines to what had already been said, in addition to thanking Nemo for the good work he had done as an admin on Meta-Wiki, and encouraging him to re-apply in the future. Thehelpfulone 16:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I just saw this in my watchlist's bottom and it was a nice coincidence that it was posted on w:Liberation Day (Italy). :) --Nemo 20:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)