Commons talk:Administrators/Howto

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Clarification on timing[edit]

Due to a recent early close, it would seem to me that clarifying the wording here as I did here is a good idea. There is no reason to close a successful nomination even one minute early, and every reason to avoid it, as early closes are a slippery slope, (how early is ok? How do you tell?) and there is no rush. Extending closing time is done where there is a clear need to do so after discussion among crats, and is not the same thing at all. Comments? ++Lar: t/c 11:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with that edit. It's neater this way - no need for extra judgement calls. --99of9 (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a good clarification to me, FWIW. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
This should be pretty obvious; I do not understand why Konankas is reverting it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I've asked him to come and defend his reversion, as it doesn't make sense to me either (note, it's Kanonkas not Konankas). As I see it this clarification was just that, a clarification, not a policy change. Our defacto policy has always been to let successful adminship requests run to completion. Which is why I and others have always commmented to 'crats that closed early and usually they realised they goofed, and that was that. Juliancolton is the first 'crat I can recall digging in their heels to the point of needing a clarification made explicit. But clarity is good. ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't indeed. My ISP had some connectivity issues, hence why I couldn't access the Internet and comment here. I apologise for any misunderstanding it might've caused. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 09:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with this alteration. If we want the deadline to actually be a deadline, I'm fine with that. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It's been a "no shorter than" deadline all along. This mod is for your benefit. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't even aware we had such loose wording somewhere that allowed for early closing of RfAs. While I don't consider a few hours early a big deal, bureaucrats should be bureaucratic when it comes to deadlines and such. :) Support the change (IMO, clarification really). Rocket000 (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I support the clarification as proposed by Lar. I think that it is justified out of respect to the community and to the candidate to let the process run for at least the minimal period unless it is withdrawn early. This minimal period is needed such that everyone finds comfortably time to notice the candidacy and to vote or comment on it. Even in apparent clear-cut cases it is not helpful if we have a race between those who want to vote or comment and 'crats who possibly close it early. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The edit isn't a clarification at all. As of now, this supposed "precedent" was disputed by the 'crat who closed it and others. The supposed precedent is undergoing discussion. This isn't a precedent agreed upon by the community or approved yet. This is one made in private without community discussion. The issue of not raising things in public has been discussed before. If there's not a reason to have it private, it should be on-wiki. In this case that wasn't done. As such I undid the good faith (but bold) edit until further agreements could be made on-wiki. Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 09:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, Kanonkas, this is not a continuation of the thread we had at Julian's talk page. We are talking now about the point whether we want to run the process for a minimal period of time (i.e. seven days) or not. So far I've just seen just comments by you that you feel uncomfortable by Lar's edit but I haven't seen a comment by you with an opinion directly on this issue. But we are talking here to find a consensus on this point. So what is your stand on this? --AFBorchert (talk) 09:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
This is the first time it's been disputed, actually, to the best of my knowledge, and it reflects badly on the 'crat who dug in and disputed it against precedent. Perhaps someone could dig up the other times a new(ish) 'crat was reminded not to close early, and how each prior time we got an "oops" instead of a "you're wrong". That's precedent, because policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes what we do. Which is, in this case, not close early. This clarification (not change) is for the benefit of those who don't realise that already. ++Lar: t/c 12:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Lar, this is about the fourth public discussion page you've badmouthed me on. I've made every effort to be congenial in this matter, and it doesn't seem like you want to reciprocate. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Julian that continuing to bring his name into this sounds like you have some kind of personal ax to grind. In particular, terms in this thread like "digging in their heels to the point of...", "for your benefit", "it reflects badly on the 'crat" are unhelpful. Please stick to discussion of the clarification/change. --99of9 (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is time to close the discussion whether there existed precedents, whether there was a consensus on an mailing list noone appears to remember exactly, whether the early closure was justified, or whether we call the proposed edit a clarification or a change. This is a policy page and we should focus on the point if anyone has any objections regarding this proposed rewording by Lar?

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per my comment above. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No objections. Why is this an issue? Does any one object besides for reasons such as "too bold; needs discussion". Does it really need discussion? If so, let's discuss any reasons for not making the change (and only that). Rocket000 (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Just undo the reversion and let's move on. This should have been done and dusted days ago. ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done: I've restored the version proposed by Lar as quite some support was voiced but no objections have been raised. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)