Commons:Checkusers/Requests/SB Johnny/Bureaucrats discussion

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

This page will be solely for Bureaucrat discussion There is a corresponding talk page Commons talk:Administrators/Requests and votes/SB Johnny (checkuser)/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.

Contents

Voters

Last updated: ++Lar: t/c 12:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  • All users with less than 50 edits before this RfCU started have their edit count at that time in bold. This is not (yet) and indication on what (if anything) will be done to their vote. —Giggy 01:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Support

4 of the supports are not counted, per bureaucrat consensus, meaning the final support tally is 62

Oppose

4 of the opposes are not counted, per bureaucrat consensus, meaning the final oppose tally is 13

Neutral

In the end there were no neutrals.

Eligibility issues

For the benefit of those watching/curious I should say that I am merely collecting data here. The only assumption I am making is that it is unlikely that any 'crat will consider those people with 50 edits ineligible to vote. I imagine there will be discussion about those below 50 in some way.

Equally I am looking at edits before voting. During a two week RfCU gaining 100+ edits after voting would really be rather simple. --Herby talk thyme 18:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Herby means "edits before the vote started", I am quite sure. That's what matters here, was the user a commons "regular" or "established user" before the RfCU vote started? It's easy to game this by doing edits now, after the vote started, and that's something we should be discouraging. Discussion of where the line is for this particular vote needs to happen to establish the number but the 50 line is a winnow. It is not likely at all that more than 50 would be supported for this vote as a line... but having the line somewhere higher than 0 clearly is supported by the "few or no edits" phrasing of the voting policy at the top of the voting page. ++Lar: t/c 14:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Evaluation of voting eligibility

  • With the RfCu now closed my view would be that those with over 50 edits at the time of commencement are definitely eligible to vote & must be counted. In a request as important as this all views should be given due consideration. However I am not sure that I see those will less than 10 edits at the time the RfCU started as being fully involved community members (this is an election for this community not other ones). I will be interested in seeing the views of other 'crats. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    Agreed. Given that it is stated clearly on the Commons:Administrators page that we expect participants to have some activity. 10 edits is not too much to ask for. Bastique demandez 16:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    Agree with Herby and Cary. —Giggy 00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    Agree with 10 edits requirement. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • My view: This is an extraordinary CU request... we've not seen this level of voting, this level of outside interest and participation, ever before here. As I said, this has become a tussle between various outside forces. That's not right. This is a decision for OUR users to make, not a battlefield in a larger war. Note that Board elections take 400 edits and some months of eligibility. Arbcom elections on en:wp take 150 edits at en:wp a month before the vote starts. CU is one of the most sensitive roles (along with Oversight), and it is reasonable to expect voters to have some stake in Commons. For that reason, I think 50 edits at Commons, before the vote commences, is reasonable. That said, given that we have not explicitly imposed restrictions before, I think this one time, 10 edits before the vote commences is OK, with the expectation being that from now on the standard will be higher. I note that the outcome (in terms of success or failure) is the same, although the numbers themselves differ, regardless of what number is picked from 10 to 50, inclusive. So my thinking is 10 is the cutoff this time. Not next time, but this time. ++Lar: t/c 16:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
10 edits should be good enough.--Jusjih (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

It would be good to see the views of any other 'crats here. However, given that four of us appear to be of the same mind, I would suggest that this could be closed fairly quickly based on striking the votes of those with less than 10 edits at the time of the start of the RfCU.

Evaluation of the comments etc is good however that will always be somewhat subject as we are none of us untouched by the concerns of those here so objectivity might be lacking. Those with less than 10 edits cannot be really seen as active members of this wiki. I think it would be important for the community to revisit voter eligibility as soon as it can. --Herby talk thyme 12:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from at least one of our active crats, here in this very section, or just above it, that they concur, so we get to 5 of 7. Both Jusjih and Eugene have indicated in emails that they concur so call it a formality if you like, but it would be nice for them to confirm that publicly. And then close this. The view of Commons regulars is clear... there are a few folk that have concerns but this is an easy pass, despite what those who are not regulars here feel. SB Johnny should take those concerns on board when he's confirmed... but there is no reason not to confirm.
Also I would like to see a revisit of eligibility to get it codified. We've tried before and we can do this if we set our minds to it. ++Lar: t/c 14:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion!

I call consensus. 5 of the 7 active 'crats have spoken in favour of the 10 edit judgement call cutoff for judging "few or no edits". I will carry out the calculations to determine the final tally and post that on the page shortly. ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and given that I was offline at the time of events, for future reference I'd like to state that I support the way this request was closed. Patrícia msg 17:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Checkusers/Requests/SB_Johnny/Bureaucrats_discussion&oldid=21282474"
Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Participate
Toolbox