Stewards/confirm/2009/Rdsmith4

The 2009 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.

Rdsmith4

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki | translate: translation help, statement

English:

Languages: en, es-3, la-2, it-2, ar-1
Personal info: While the logs make it look as though I'm somewhat inactive, in fact I make myself available on IRC on a very regular basis and respond as necessary to requests of various kinds, not all of which result in user rights changes. I have contributed extensively to the documentation and policies relating to stewards, and have periodically introduced formatting changes, minor and major, to ensure the continued efficient functioning of SR/P (formerly RFP). My extra-Wikimedia commitments make it somewhat unlikely that my log-evidenced activity will rise much in the next year, but this does not mean I am absent from Meta -- it only means I am rarely the first one to jump on a new request. I intend to maintain my regular presence on IRC, and if confirmed I will continue to perform steward tasks at every opportunity. — Dan

русский:

Языки: en, es-3, la-2, it-2, ar-1
Личная информация: (здесь должно быть заявление)

Comments about Rdsmith4

Fine for me, though could be a tad more active. Majorly ^talk 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does good work, but I agree I'd like to see more of it. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I'll note that the suggestion that transferring rights from one account to another is inappropriate is a tad silly, IMO. The point of stewards not changing rights (etc) on their home wiki is to prevent a conflict of interest. Since essentially nothing changed in this case, there can be no conflict of interest. If he had promoted someone to sysop who wasn't previously, we might have something worth talking about. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really active, but not inactive enough to remove, does a good job when around. Prodego ^talk 03:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
150 right changes in 2 years is tad too low but is generally around all the time, has my trust :) ..confirm..--Comet styles 03:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sage advice on IRC. Active enough. ++Lar: t/c 04:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm. Good work. MBisanz ^talk 06:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. − Elfix × talk (fr) 11:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Often helping via IRC, good work as steward, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 10:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cf. Birdy. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coimeád - though quiet - Alison ^❤ 19:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Keep up the good work. - Mailer Diablo 04:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this transfer was an inappropriate use of steward rights on your home wiki. John Vandenberg 07:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, how is it? Majorly ^talk 16:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All promotions should be done on the local wiki. It's a minor point, but it's an important one that dates back to the beginning of stewardship. --MZMcBride 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZM: This was not a new promotion but a transfer of rights. I seem to remember I decided to do both rights changes at Meta so as to keep them in the same log, hoping that this would minimize confusion and not give the impression that it was an unwarranted new promotion. I figured this consideration was more important than the convention that all promotions must be done locally. It seems to me that the relevant principle here is that stewards shouldn't grant sysop flags on wikis that have local bureaucrats; but I'm also a bureaucrat at en.wiki, so that problem is neutralized.

But I think John was suggesting that I shouldn't be changing rights on en.wiki from Meta at all, since that's my home project. To this I can only respond that (1) I was executing a request made by the user, and not making any decisions of my own, so there is no possibility of conflicting interests; and (2) my actions caused no controversy nor provoked any objections whatsoever, precisely because I was doing no more than executing a request. I have argued for quite a while that the old prohibition on stewards changing rights on their home wikis is unnecessary in cases that involve no active decision-making. In fact, this is why we agreed a while back to change the relevant section of the policy to read "... except for clearcut cases (such as self-requested removal or emergencies)". — Dan | talk 23:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this and further will say that I've done the very same thing. I don't think clear cut, non controversial items like this are problematic... a shift is not a promotion. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where could I go about attempting to change the policy that says admins can uncontroversially have their adminship transferred to a new account without any sort of on wiki record or process for this? I'm frustrated by secret adminship transfers (there are a handful of en.wiki admins who can't be traced to an RFA at all) and would like to at least express my opinion against this anti-transparent practice. --JayHenry 04:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either individual wikis (every "completely untraceable" one on en:wp that I am aware of (because the transfer didn't happen as a matched pair here) was done with awareness of en:wp ArbCom) to address it wiki by wiki, or perhaps the talk page for Steward policies, here. There is no way to escape an onwiki record (without developer intervention) in the case of a rights transfer... you'll always find record of the removal half it in the user rights log here. (But I think you mean something a bit more formal/direct/explicit than just a log entry) Further, doing both halves of the transfer here (turn off and turn on) means it's a bit easier to track, at least in my view, than if one half is done here (the turn off) and the other half elsewhere, because you can see what was done and it's paired. You have to know to come here to find it, of course. ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant an on en.wiki record, and I'm certainly not sure where Arbcom derived the authority to grant secret adminship transfers. (I became aware of this secret transfer issue when I noticed a complete spookadmin engaging in behavior I felt was harassment of someone I was trying to work with. Where can an editor like myself even begin to set that straight? Certainly not with ArbCom 2007-08 which felt entitled to create spookadmins in the first place.) But my point is actually a bit broader. It seems to me there are only two scenarios, either 1) if an admin asks a Steward to transfer their admin rights to some other account, this is permitted without condition (and I see no evidence this has ever been any sort of supported ideal) or 2) Dan did make a decision of his own. --JayHenry 04:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan is correct in assuming I am mostly concerned about this action being done by a steward on their home wiki. This was not a clearcut case as it isnt supported by enwiki policy or common practise. The request should have been posted onto meta, with explanation and justification, and evaluated by another steward who is not active in enwiki. At least then there would be an opportunity for community discussion, and an unbiased decision maker. You did "decide" that the request was appropriate and did not need any community discussion. John Vandenberg 08:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Bish is hardly the first person to deal with bit transfers. Ocee and H both dealt with similar things. --MZMcBride 18:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly aware of the problem of transparency; in fact, I asked the user in question to announce the change openly on her userpage (which she did, though the page is now deleted; for what it's worth, the revision is [1]). Had she not wished to do so, I would not have granted the request. I further informed her that if there were any objections I would reverse the change. I took my action to be validated by the fact that no objections ever came to my attention (until this moment of course). And when secrecy is not an issue, a transfer of rights seems to me just the kind of mere formality that stewards are accustomed to handle.

If it turns out that an agreement now emerges that this sort of thing should not be done, then we will know for sure not to do it in the future, and I will naturally abide by that decision. But at the time I did the transfer, and apparently for eleven months afterward, it seems not to have been understood as problematic in any way. And if it can be argued that on some understanding what I did amounted to a "judgment" or a "decision", then it was no more than the minimal amount of judgment or decision that is involved in any steward action -- if a steward really were to make no decisions at all, he or she would do exactly nothing. With respect, I believe that my actions were appropriate to the state of opinion at the time, and I hope they will not be held against me if and when the state of opinion begins to change. — Dan | talk 19:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's well said and I don't think at all that you should be removed as a Steward. But going forward I'd like to discourage the practice of blithely shifting adminship from one account to another. It is not silly; the shifting is confusing (not to mention frustrating and even unfair to all the outsiders), makes it difficult to find the RFA, a deleted user page is a pretty tough barrier to get past for an ordinary editor, it breaks the log of admin actions in half, not to mention the actual editing contributions, etc. Another point, Dan, is that while I'm hardly a noob I was unable to figure out who gave Bishzilla adminship rights. I don't know how to navigate around the logs that well. Personally I like Bish, and my concern has nothing to do with her. It's that what happened was completely opaque. --JayHenry 05:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --oscar 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Jusjih 03:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove inactive (15 rights changes/year [except self change])--Kwj2772 03:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the user rights change was not any sort of COI--should not be taken as any kind of abuse. It might should have been logged differently but I see no problem with the situation. bastique ^demandez! 18:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's available, knowledgeable, and (as long as we keep him about) capable of doing what needs be done. I'd be happier if he'd do promotions with local abilities, but I understand his rationale as given. Kylu 04:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Has responded with equanimity to the fairly difficult line of questioning above. Dan has demonstrated, in my opinion, the right temperament and sound judgment needed for the role.--JayHenry 05:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Woudloper 11:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support Thanks for the job you're doing. Finn Rindahl 12:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per above. Alex Pereira ^falaê 16:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't come from his home wiki, but at my home wiki (enwikiquote) he didn't understand the principle no steward without local community request are invited to use bits, specially if there are local bureaucrats and they have their own request process. He used a bit instead just being asked by someone on IRC who didn't want to comply with the local request procedure. Since his statement stewards are allowed to use bits when they think it fine and petty regardless how the local community thinks and self-efficient, and no signal he has changed his mind, I am against that he continues. It is not personal but from disagreement in principle. --Aphaia 00:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support confirmation. Juliancolton 00:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Active steward. --Millosh 13:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Shizhao 14:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep --FiliP × 17:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]