User talk:Fred J/Adminship confirmation
Comment[edit]
I'd prefer to see this as the Meta one (m:Meta:Administrators/confirm) so that the default setting is that rights are retained (& the user is not asked). The name is merely listed and there is no need to "support" the retention unless anyone "opposes" - then & only then it becomes a form of RfA.
However I would also like to see confirmation for any rights held at the same time (rather than have separate ones based on when the rights were granted). It would be possible then to have retention of admin rights while someone did not retain 'crat rights for example.
Equally I think I would tend to schedule them quarterly (to reduce the administrative load) with a group rather than individually. Just my thoughts so far --Herby talk thyme 13:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think I'd favour rights being confirmed the month (or quarter, depending on which we go with) when they are granted but I see the merit of lumping them all together. After the first year, all the rights will be in sync (that is, it will be a year since last confirmation) ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah - I kinda agree but it would/could be messy. The odds of someone being de-crat'd (for example) within months of being granted the rights seems slim too. I'd just like to see the option of not merely confirming sysops rights (after all it is inactivity with the others that can cause issues) --Herby talk thyme 14:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm of two minds about inactivity... as you may know, I'm a 'crat on meta. I'm pretty active there as a user and as an admin and as a CU, but so far I have not yet done a single thing with my 'crat ship bitsetting/renaming wise. Not because I don't *want* to, just because someone else always beats me to it. :) (This is a good thing from the user perspective, requests get handled promptly, which is goodness) So when a year is up, does that mean I should lose it for inactivity? I don't think so. When I stood we had an apparent shortage, and the person who's doing most of the work now could go inactive again (things happen)... then where would we be. So, as I say, I'm of two minds about activity levels. PS, why are we talking about this here? ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I also don't see any point with revoking the b'cracy bit. On Portugese Wikipedia (or was it Spanish?) all admins are also b'crats and it works for them.
- However, if people on Commons want to revoke someone's bureaucrat rights for whatever reason, I am okay with it.
- Personally, I am fairly inactive as a bureaucrat here on Commons, but it just seems to me there are others (such as Lar and Eugene) who do the job better and faster than me, so I prefer to do work in areas where I consider myself more useful. Maybe at some time there will be necessary for me to do those chorse, and then I will glady chip in on it, of course.
- Fred J (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have two issues here
- My own views on tools & inactivity. Tools are for use - if they are not used they go, get them back if you want them. But that is personal.
- The way it looks to others. It looked like we had 7 CUs here when two were completely inactive. It now looks like we have 5 when two are pretty questionable. If I try and get a couple to stand folks will say "Ah but we have enough numerically speaking". The same applies to 'crats - don't know the "count" off hand but at least three (& I am not counting you Fred - I see you as active) are inactive. To me a couple more would be appropriate given the "stewardness" of some!
- It is those factors that bother me --Herby talk thyme 08:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have two issues here
- I'm of two minds about inactivity... as you may know, I'm a 'crat on meta. I'm pretty active there as a user and as an admin and as a CU, but so far I have not yet done a single thing with my 'crat ship bitsetting/renaming wise. Not because I don't *want* to, just because someone else always beats me to it. :) (This is a good thing from the user perspective, requests get handled promptly, which is goodness) So when a year is up, does that mean I should lose it for inactivity? I don't think so. When I stood we had an apparent shortage, and the person who's doing most of the work now could go inactive again (things happen)... then where would we be. So, as I say, I'm of two minds about activity levels. PS, why are we talking about this here? ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah - I kinda agree but it would/could be messy. The odds of someone being de-crat'd (for example) within months of being granted the rights seems slim too. I'd just like to see the option of not merely confirming sysops rights (after all it is inactivity with the others that can cause issues) --Herby talk thyme 14:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason to bother/ask the admin if he/she wants to run again. This can be assumed and they could always comment on their confirmation listing that they're stepping down. It would be ideal for clearly active admins in good standing not to have to do anything (except maybe watch their listing for opposes). As for the last point Herby brought up, I think things can work out using same process (and at the same time as long as users point out what rights they're opposing the user keeps). For example, we can oppose certain active admins' b'crat rights if they never use them. The user could then (or preemptively) say why they should keep them. Based on their rationale others could vote and make the final decision. AFAIC, removing for inactivity is the main purpose of this policy. Rocket000 08:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Voting rights[edit]
On RfAs, it seems that anyone and everyone can vote including anons. This is fine because there's enough other votes to prevent skewing if the anon vote was done if bad faith or was a sockpuppet. However, with this process there's going to be a lot less activity (I hope). What are we going to do when, say, some random IP(s) opposes simply because they didn't like something the admin did? Would we still need three times as many support votes to cancel that out? Should all opposes require a rationale to be considered valid? I know we can look at it like we do RfAs and take everything in to account, not just votes, but it would be nice to set some ground rules. Rocket000 08:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is important anyway whether for confirmation on any other voting (maybe this should be elsewhere). As I understand it IPs cannot vote in RfAs. However as I was forced to point out on Meta a day or so back sock puppet voting is extremely rare (none that I am aware of since I had CU rights) and we need to assume good faith with voters - if you doubt that consider that they decided to elect you :).
- Please understand I basically agree with you however. Yesterday someone voted on a confirmation on Meta with an oppose. It was their third edit. The first was to set up their user page, the second was to oppose the election of a steward and then this. We are all entitled to our own views however - to me - the views of real contributors to the project concerned should have more weight. An idea was tossed around on Meta to take away voting and base results on the weight of the comments - sadly no full proposal has been forthcoming - the idea is good but the practicalities are daunting I think.
- Voter eligibility (indeed admin eligibility) must be addressed --Herby talk thyme 17:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Re voter eligibility, I'd like to think that an at least autoconfirmed user should be able to comment. As for admin eligibility, most of the status quo should suffice. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:43, 13 January 2008 (GMT)
- I agree with that. Rocket000 05:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Re voter eligibility, I'd like to think that an at least autoconfirmed user should be able to comment. As for admin eligibility, most of the status quo should suffice. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:43, 13 January 2008 (GMT)