Commons:Requests and votes/SterkeBak/Bureaucrats discussion

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Please note this page is for the Bureaucrat discussion that will follow the closing of of this RFA

This page will be solely for bureaucrats' discussion There is a corresponding talk page Commons talk:Administrators/Requests and votes/SterkeBak/Bureaucrats discussion that can be used for feedback and comment by community members. Such comment will be read and taken on board before a final decision is rendered. Comments inadvertently left here may be refactored to that page.


Voters

Final raw vote was 28 for / 10 against. This consists of a 73.8% pass; lower than the general 75% margin for passing. Bastique demandez 20:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nod. I think we need to carry out a more detailed analysis though, as we did for SB Johnny; we want to take important information into account but also give credence to the members of the community who have to work with SterkeBak on a day to day basis. ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is obvious canvassing on this RfA, that was even admitted by Erik Baas. I can't think that all of these oppose votes coming on the last day, on the last hours, are a coincidence. No matter how much I respect several of the people that voted against SterkeBak, I'm still prone to ignore these "last minute deals" that popped out all of the sudden.
I can understand that the people opposing today are concerned about SterkeBak's previous actions and attitudes on nl.wiki. But the current active Commons community did not see the same patterns, or didn't think they were important. I believe we should give more weight to the more Commons active community. Besides, not all nl.wiki users were opposing. And I do think people react in different ways on different wikis. We're not so much below the 75% threshold that it would be shocking to give the bit, even if we ignored also the support votes made to counterbalance the wave of oppose ones. As long as everybody takes it with a nip of salt and a lot of good faith. Patrícia msg 21:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I had decided to vote, I would have leaned toward oppose, but simply by virtue of what I knew about events at nlwiki. I did not vote, because I have not had the opportunity to review SterkeBak's contributions to Commons. I think that it's important to note that a large number of regular Commons contributors have voted in support for StrekeBak, and when you take that into consideration, while addressing the concerns of the polled voters from nlwiki, which is rather important, I think we should consider this a passed vote. I'd like to back this opinion up with numbers, but this is my feeling, I'm sure other bureaucrats can do it better with figures.
I would just advise SterkeBak that if access is granted, he be mindful of the concerns brought forward by the nlwiki members. Bastique demandez 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have voted on this RfA (in support, literally minutes before the concerns were raised), but at the point I would not call it a consensus. I suggest it be closed unsuccessful, or extended; preferably the former. Yes, we are near the 75% threshold, and yes, there was canvassing, but think significant issues have been raised and have been taken on board by users who are Commons regulars, as well as some who aren't. Giggy (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never really noticed the work of SterkeBak so I can't assess it, but I trust abf and obviously he was not the only one here on Commons who wanted to start an RFA for him. But all those votes from his original home-wiki raise concern, even so that last-minute-mass-voting looks like it was arranged within a group. On the one side I would not want to discern their votes (only two weeks ago I also voted against someone because of something he did on another wiki), there sure was a reason for them, but I don't like the ways they did it. It was so late in the whole process and then all within two hours. Two people provided a link, but it seems to be about the same problem. I can't read the discussion and how SterkeBak reacted. So before I make any opinion I would like to know if it is something where SterkeBak just needs more information about copyright (after all when I got admin I had less experience at Commons and hardly any knowledge about most copyright topics except the licences usually used in software programming) or if this really shows proove that SterkeBak is not suited for being admins. Currently I am more in favour for him. -- Cecil (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO ... We should not judge how the outcome "should" have come out by evaluating other factors than the voting itself. That oversteps the 'crats mandate. Nor should we judge it based on counting how we "would have voted" as actual votes, as we could have voted if we chose to. I think we need to confine our analysis to determining what the "will of commons" is. Since it's not clear, there isn't consensus among US yet (unlike with SBJohnny, we all were pretty clear that after removing votes from those that were not stakeholders here, the will of commons was clear), I think we need to lay out the votes and do the analysis of how many contributions each voter had, prior to the vote starting, just as we did for SB Johnny. I'll take a crack at it later today if no one else beats me to it. I am not opposed to extending but I think that's not as good an option as sorting this out. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extending now would effectively be a restart, which is not a good idea unless SterkeBak asks for one. Eugene's suggestion below, combined with a restart to let Commons participants have their say on the issues raised, would also work (again with SterkeBak's permission) if we decide there is no consensus here. Giggy (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think will be good idea to ask opposed users to provide specific links (I noticed only 2 of them what is not looks systematic) to problems in nl:wiki which could be independently verified. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Eugene's suggestion is a very sensible one. Whereas we cannot condone canvassing, we should strive to not exclude opinions from valued wikimedians. We should invite them to give further support to their claims, for example on new sections in the talk page. Preferably, these should be recent links (people can change behavior over time). I also think extending the vote is out of question. Patrícia msg 09:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

On my assessment of general tenor of the "polled" comments from nlwiki, I am reading it mostly that the opinion is that the individuals are not absolutely opposed to SterkeBak's having of the tools but rather not until he has a better grasp of what the tools entail. When weighing the votes, it seems that SterkeBak does meet the criteria for gaining the tools, so it would be difficult and unfair to ask that he come back after some time when he has proven himself to the opposition that he can be responsible with the tools.

I do, however, believe that the opinions merit some strong consideration, and having heard from several Commons members who had strong enough reservations to withhold voting, in addition to my own opinion, granting the tools unconditionally seems a bad idea; especially in light of the additional information provided by the polled participants.

Let me say frankly that many good users have bad moments. SterkeBak seem to be working on rehabilitating himself, and in all likelihood will prove himself a valuable asset to Commons, and "Assume Good Faith" is a guiding principal of all our projects. On the other hand, with an unconditional granting of rights, it becomes hard to remove most anyone's access unless there is a severe breach or abusive behavior; and even so it requires engagement by a large swath of the community.

My proposal is thus, and should satisfy both parties, and shall be contingent on SterkeBak's agreeing to it so that we can move past this. That SterkeBak is granted conditional admin rights on Commons for a period of 60 days. If, during that period, at least three bureaucrats agree that SterkeBak is, in fact, not ready for the Commons admin tools, his access will be revoked and a revote will be necessary. Bastique demandez 16:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support this, with the proviso that if he does not agree, we shall close this as no consensus to promote and further with the modification that he will not have access revoked while the re-RfA is running, only if the re-RfA does not result in consensus to promote (and that it has the same standards for consensus as a normal one does, not the standards we use for de-sysopping) ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With 73.6% supports with considerable oppositions, I do not recommend promoting the candidate. I suggest that the candidate should wait for a few months before trying again.--Jusjih (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support too, as Lar specified. By the way, Jusjih, it are 74,36% (Bastique probably did not see Giggys vote the first time) and two of the voters (one support/one oppose) have done nothing else on Commons than this voting, without them it would be 75,67%. So as it is a narrow result, I think Bastiques idea is a good one. -- Cecil (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I supported the candidate, I (as I've said above) don't see a consensus to promote here. However, I am willing to agree with Lar (on the same conditions) because wrapping this up should be a priority, and as the proposal could help resolve doubts held by the opposers (or prove them right; either way, a more clear consensus). Giggy (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a hundred percent sure this is the right thing to do, but this is a case where it's hard to be a hundred percent sure about what is the right thing to do. Given that is a good middle term, I agree with Bastique's proposal, including Lar's proviso. I sympathize with Jusjih's concern, but I think we're at a level that we could give or not the admin bit depending on how we would count. Patrícia msg 12:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call the question

Please clearly signify, by explicit use of  Support or  Oppose, your agreement with, or opposition to, the following. If a majority of active crats agree within 3 days, (that is, by 12:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC) )it will be enacted, else the initial RfA shall be closed as no consensus to promote

SterkeBak is granted conditional admin rights on Commons for a period of 60 days commencing with the bit being turned on by a bureaucrat. If, during that period, at least three bureaucrats agree that SterkeBak is, in fact, not ready for the Commons admin tools, or otherwise feel it is necessary for whatever reason, a revote or re-RfA will be held. Should such a revote be determined to be necessary, SterkeBak will continue to have admin tools access while the re-RfA is running. If the re-RfA does not result in consensus to promote, the tools will be removed. The re-RfA will have the same standards for consensus as a normal one does, not the standards we use for de-sysopping.
SterkeBak must explicitly agree to these terms in an unambiguous way, or the initial RfA shall be closed as no consensus to promote.

Votes on proposal

SterkeBak's agreement

I agree. And thanks for the decision Sterkebaktalk 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If i am correct the 60 day on 05-12-2008? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SterkeBak (talk • contribs) 7 octobre 2008 à 16:36 (UTC)
60 days from today is December 6, 2008 at 16:42 (UTC). Bastique demandez 16:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision rendered

SterkeBak is an admin on a conditional basis. At the end of 60 days (December 6, 2008 at 16:42 UTC) if the conditions for revocation have not been met, he will retain this admin status as would a normal administrator. Bastique demandez 16:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_and_votes/SterkeBak/Bureaucrats_discussion&oldid=21185757"