Meta talk:Administrators/confirm/bureaucrat chat/July 2008

• Bureaucrats: You most likely want the project page, not this talkpage. Kylu 06:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of July 2008 confirmations (Bureaucrat chat)

Role of bureaucrats

I can't help but notice that some comments of bureaucrats in this discussion have simply been to repeat comments have they made in the initial discussion. I worry that this gives the impression that the opinion of bureaucrats on the merits of a given candidates carries more weight than that of non-bureaucrats. It seems to me that that the purpose of these discussions is to interpret the will of the meta community, it is not that to pass the decision to bureaucrats where the result is contentious. For example, this comment seems to be Cometstyles' personal opinion, rather than an interpretation of the consensus in the reconfirmation discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm made that comment per policy, if someone makes 250 edits in 5 years, it shows that that person is not bothered about that wiki and most people voted Keep because of his recent activity which was an RfB request which was denied because of his inactivity and just a short burst of activity isn't really a good indicator of anything and per the inactivity clause:"

Any sysop inactive on Meta for a full year will be de-sysoped. "Inactive" means no edits in the past 6 months and less than 50 edits in the last year. They may re-apply through the regular way.

• • He made 33 edits this year and from that 33 edits, 18 were regarding his RfB, 1 in april and the rest in june and since July thats 6 months and so he has automatically failed activity, so if you think my comments are personal grudges, then that's your opinion and I'm sorry if I like to do things by the book here or make sure others so the same....--Cometstyles 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You did may that comment, it was a perfectly valid contribution to the discussion. What you don't seem to see is that there is a difference between your role in contributing to that discussion and your role as a bureaucrat in interpreting that discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So regarding that comment, if not taken out of context, it means

• I disagreed with Kylu's ideas which was numbered as

1) Temporary adminship is for new editors or those starting new projects or those that need it for protected pages and regarding Andre, he only edited the interwiki map whicb isn't a project page so another admin could do it as well if needed.

2)Extend his term for three months to determine if he plans to do enough SBL (or other administrative) work to continue. - this wasn't necessary because he wasn't actually active for over a month so giving him sysops for another 3 months will not seem viable..--Cometstyles 03:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You can of course disagree with Kylu's suggestions for closing the confirmations, what concerns me is that instead of directly addressing whether or not the closes she proposes are valid outcomes to the discussion, you seem to have simply restated the opinions you expressed in the discussion. I think it important that if bureaucrats comment in a discussion they plan to close (which I think generally unwise, but that is a separate matter), that they focus on interpreting the will of the community and discussing what is a permissible outcome. An individual bureaucrat's views on the merits of the candidate shouldn't form part of closing discussions, lest it give the mistaken appearance that these "trump" the opinions of other editors. WJBscribe (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Kylu and me already decided this on IRC that andrevan's confirmations will be controversial seeing that he has 47% for remove which is lower than 75% which no one has mentioned uptil now weirdly and I really don't think my comments ever "trump" the opinions of others, most editors such as Lar and CBrown1023 usually never consider some of my comments, which is a good thing but regarding andre's confirmations, they agreed with me, which I really didn't expect and most editors if not all, including you voted Keep for andre's confirmation just looking at his June edits which I believe is wrong since you should always look at a person's activity levels since he got his sysop bit or since his last confirmation and not just based on the following month and based on that and the policy which I stated above earlier, I voted remove...--Cometstyles 04:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that someone's oppose/support is based on what you consider to be "incorrect" rationales (ie. above where you claim WJBscribe's support is "wrong" because it focused on July only) is irrelevant to a bureaucrat chat. Your opinions don't apply, and nor do your opinions (especially about legitimacy of rationale) on other people's opinions apply. Your job is to judge consensus, not to judge whether someone's reason is in your opinion not as good as your own. Daniel (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Disagree with both, as I said on his confirmations, his last 150 edits go back to year 2005 and his last 250 edits go back to 2003, which simply means he is neither active and looking at those trend, he will not even be that active in the near future, he has no sue for the tools and it should be removed, and when and if he becomes active again, and he wants to be an admin, then he should follow the proper normal procedure that means he has to be very active for over 3 months..." - that is a pointless comment to make in a bureaucrat chat. It is a reason to remove the +sysop, not a reason to judge consensus. The role of a bureaucrat chat is to judge consensus, not to have another round of bureaucrat-only voting about whether to remove the +sysop. Daniel (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I said before but as usual, I get misquoted: his last 150 edits go back to year 2005 and his last 250 edits go back to 2003, which simply means he is neither active and looking at those trend, he will not even be that active in the near future,, << that is my bureaucratic comment, and please both of you stop taking it out of context, that was not a BIAS comment and I did judge consensus and the consensus is that if a person has 75% Keeps, then he remains as an admin but andre was 47% which clearly means NO, but we still had the Bureaucrat chat anyways so that we don't make mistakes regarding this, if I had really been following policy, I would have removed his sysop access once the confirmations ended and not continue this discussions and Daniel I didn't say that "WJBscribe's support is "wrong" because it focused on July", look at the confirmations please, and all supported based on his recent burst of activity and none of it was related to the person "actually" being active, if you look at previous confirmations, users who were inactive manage to make a comment in their confirmations that they will try to be active from now on and but andre did no such thing, so if a person doesn't care about it, its an indicator that he really doesn't need it so why we even have this chat on him, I really don't know and the consensus was to REMOVE sysops due to his inactivity and those that made that comment were the ones that "actually " looked through his contribs and not base their opinions on who andre is and finally I'd say the community has spoken and his right will be removed soon for failing confirmations due to lack of activity and that is not my decision, but all the other crats decision!!..--Cometstyles 04:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I think that may be the longest single sentence I have ever read... WJBscribe (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

really???, Do I get into "Wiki's Book of Records" ? :DD ....--Cometstyles 04:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

When comments are repeated, it's only because they are relevant. Andrevan does not meet policy admin activity levels, so even if it was 100% keep, he should be removed per policy (though obviously if that was the case, we'd probably ignore the policy). Bureaucrats are supposed to look at the discussion and see what the general feeling is. The fact is, a lot of people said to keep Andre despite failing to meet the basic activity criteria. He has failed to meet the 75% requirement of keep votes by a long shot, so I don't know why he is even being discussed. Majorly ^talk 11:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

IF there was a compelling reason to not go with the vote totals, we ought to discuss it, just as we have in the past. But no compelling reason has been presented so I agree, I think we're done. VV turned him off already anyway. I think we're all set on all of these discussions now. ++Lar: t/c 14:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)