Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Kanonkas

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Withdrawn at user request ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Due to the accusations presented, and the feedback I have gotten from the opposition, I think it's time for a withdrawal. I thank you all for your comments in this RfB. --Kanonkas(talk) 09:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kanonkas

ended 09:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Vote

Links for candidate: Kanonkas (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Kanonkas has been an administrator since May 31, 2008. Since that time Kanonkas has taken over 8000 administrative actions. In January Kanonkas was promoted to administrator at the English Wikipedia almost unanimously. The objective facts aside, Kanonkas has a dedication to this project that is second-to-none. In adition, Kanonkas has shown a deep knowledge in many of the key areas of Commons and Wikipedia and how the projects interrelate. It is my opinion that Kanonkas has the appropriate disposition to handle the added stress and responsibility the position requires. In my experience Kanonkas has shown a great willingness to take into advisement consideration constructive criticism, witch is a very valuable and rare trait. Given these subjective facts (oxymoron?) I hereby nominate Kanonkas for the position of Bureaucrat. I can think of very few who can fill this role as well. --J.smith (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given this a thought. As such, I will share my views & thoughts.
I've been grumbling over this little question: "Why do we need more bureaucrats?"
I think I'd make a good addition to the bureaucrat team. We've lost Giggy, Rocket000, Lmbuga, and Herby who were very active as bureaucrats, except Rocket who resigned due to some issues. I think my language skills, my ability to lead compromises/disputes, active in community discussions (that includes judgement and action). As a matter of fact, I'm also experienced with bots. I've got a bit understanding of perl/php (a bit) and python. I've noticed quite a few people seek my advice, and trust me.
Either way, they trust & respect my opinion and judgement; at least it feels like that after all the positive replies I have gotten back. Not to mention, I've been pretty active for almost a year now. All in all I think I can help the current bureaucrat team, espescially with discussions, where I've been told to have a sound judgement.
What we need is to be able to "stay mellow" when the the wind is on its worst. A specific example I would like to bring up, would be how a user gets the the community to follow them, with, or without the flag. I think how I handled the Gryffindor incident shows a bit on my part. Thank you for the consideration, I accept. --Kanonkas(talk) 21:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Votes

  •  Support No pb, of course. --Pymouss Tchatcher - 21:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support PeterSymonds (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - without a doubt - Huib talk 21:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Obviously. MBisanz talk 22:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Absolutely. Rama (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Full support from me. Esby (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support With all my trust. →Diti the penguin — 22:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, obviously. Juliancolton (Talk) 22:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --AFBorchert (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Given all the opposing votes by the sitting bureaucrats and some other users below I feel inclined to elaborate my reasonings for my supporting vote. I followed mainly the summary on this page where bureaucrats are mainly seen as admins that are entrusted with some additional responsibilities. Kanonkas, and this has not been doubted by anyone, is familiar with bots such that it sounds reasonable to entrust him with the privilege to set bot flags. Similarly, Kanonkas was promoting users to Flickr reviewers, apparently without problems so far. He nominated quite a number of users for adminship with success as far as I can see. Given his high level of activity in the last year it is surprising to see that not a single case was brought here into this RFB by his opposers where he judged poorly. Instead, nearly all voters here including the opposing bureaucrats assert that he belongs to our best admins. So what is missing to accept him as bureaucrat? Some opposing votes stress that bureaucrats fill a completely different role than regular admins. They are supposed to foster consensus and forge compromises. This is, however, not included in our description for bureaucrats which simply summarizes the additional privileges. In my opinion, the role to foster consensus and forge compromises is something which has to be filled by all of us and I fail to see any ground that restricts this role to bureaucrats. If bureaucrats are supposed to have responsibilities beyond the additional privileges please put this in writing and seek community wide consensus for it. I know very well that some of our bureaucrats (but not all of them) are quite good in this role but they were quite good in this already before they were nominated as bureaucrats. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the policy doesn't reflect what we do, then the policy simply needs to be changed. The fact is that the role of bureaucrat is what it is - whether some wiki page describes it well or not is irrelevant.  — Mike.lifeguard 01:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy is often descriptive rather than prescriptive. It's not whether 'crats are "supposed to have responsibilities"... it's whether they actually do. And they do... as Mike says, this is an area where the written policy lags actual policy. ++Lar: t/c
    I think that this difference between actual and written policy is in this case quite unfortunate as it contributed to the outcome of this vote. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Okki (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support with a small disappointment : he said there would be cookies... and there are no cookies at all !--Lilyu (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
after reading the comments and opposes, i keep my opinion as  Support, as it looks to me that people are focusing on a single case (the Gryffindor's one), which was far from being an easy case with a side for the good guys 'n one for the bad guys. Thus, for me, it fails to be a significant reason to oppose, as we don't request bureaucrats to think all the same way and have a single opinion which is the solely truth. In this regard, the "imagine you are the only one bureaucrat and you have to decide for everyone" looks just silly to me. We cant expect every crats to have all the time the same opinion as the majority of users. There is supposed to be a discussion between crats after an rfa, for that we need different opinions : the result decision is produced by a group.
Also, i have check Kanonkas' opinions on a panel of rfa before voting, and i didn't saw disturbing differences between his advice and the final results.
Side note about some comments 'n talk page : oh c'mon, Commons:2008 Election suffrage poll failed to become a commons' policy (also quite a good example of crats having a different opinion than the majority, doesn't mean they don't deserve their crat's status) --Lilyu (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that it was a question stretching the limits of reality :), but since Kanonkas mentioned the Gryffindor case as an example on how he would deal problems as a bureaucrat in his acceptance text, I think it's fair to ask for explanations about it. Yes, it was a tough case, and we were having problems in coming to a conclusion, so it's not far-fetched to ask what a bureaucrat candidate would do in a similar situation (in fact, MichaelMaggs was asked more or less the same). You are of course free to disagree, and that is simply a sign that we are healthy as a community. May I ask that you retract the X. bit, that was an unnecessary (and unfair) personal remark about Herby. Thank you, Patrícia msg 10:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I took no offence however (assuming I read it right) Lilyu is obviously not around Commons enough to know I dropped my 'crat rights by the Autumn of last year. --Herby talk thyme 11:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a remark pointing out at someone in particular, rather a "way of looking at things", that i find quite disturbing. But yeah, it's not really the place to talk about it, you two are welcome to contact me on my talk page.--Lilyu (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • I respect your opinion Michael, and I did mentor Kanonkas at enwiki a good deal. He did "feel" his way out when I was helping him to write articles, so I think he has the temperament to be a mellow crat. Also, I understand the concerns about self-awareness of his tone, but I think it is important to remember that English isn't his first language, so sometimes what he says may be overly formal (I remember the same thing when I took Latin) to a native speaker, so I wouldn't read too much into his tone. MBisanz talk 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate what he was supposing to do with the bot flag request? I mean, there is nothing wrong in speeding a process / reminding the delay limits supposed there is no harm in doing it. I mean, if crats are asked to detail their opinions, they should talk or tell they are not available. On a similar matter, I ain't convincted than doing nothing or waiting for some peaceful minds handling the questions works better, I mean, I have done myself valid requests to bots operators, and the requests are still not answered yet. One is from 7th september, none commented it. One is from 2 february, same treatment for now. I assume that when requests are not processed in due delay, that must mean we lack people doing those tasks. Esby (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I  Agree with Esby. if there is no reason to delay, then there should be no delay.--OsamaK 14:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As others have done, I've put a lot of thought into this, and I regretfully cannot support Kanonkas as a bureaucrat for Commons. In fact, the evidence he cites to show he will be a good 'crat actually shows the opposite IMO. For example, he has been a rather uncompromising voice in several block discussions, and has attempted to dominate some discussions to an inappropriate extent. Looking further still, and listing off only the the first few issues that come to mind: username policy (didn't engage in meaningful discussion with the community, instead scrapping the proposal when consensus wasn't going his way - and was rather huffy about it too), rather strange input in RFAs (rather important for a 'crat, one would think), and I could go on but choose not to. While Kanonkas does a good job on balance as a sysop (not perfect, but who is?), he is not in a good position to perform this function well - which is qualitatively different from being an administrator.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  مع, I believe that Kanonkas will choose the best solution as needed. I knew him while back, and he was very kind and helpful.--OsamaK 17:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Hard work good user (as shown throughout different projects) and have only ever had pleasant experiences with the user. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 20:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It's been pointed out to me that I haven't voted yet. Bah-humbug! J.smith (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support :O BJTalk 22:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It looks like I'm always the last person to find out about these votes! Kanonkas is one of the very best Admins on Commons in my opinion and has always been fair in his dealings with me. He is openminded and tolerant. What more can one say? Regarding Esby's comments above, I have told Kanonkas of my concern that there are not enough Admins on Commons--at only c.200--to handle all the Admin related tasks here. I said I thought 260-270 good Admins is preferable...if not you get a backlog of things to do and things get missed and mistakes happen. Thank You, Leoboudv (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that we need more people like Kanonkas ;-) --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 12:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - I'm not comfortable supporting someone for bureaucratship on commons that Finn, Michael and Mike oppose, particularly in the manner that they do. That said, I don't quite find their comments compelling enough to oppose given the tremendous amount of positive comment above. So I'm going to sit on the fence, at least for now. I suspect I might well be swayed by the answer to Lar's question below. WJBscribe (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Reluctant oppose. Sadly I think I have to oppose this request at this time. I am not persuaded by the answers to questions from Lar and Patrícia below but I am by the opposition from Herby and Rocket. I think I would like to see evidence of Kanonkas working to foster consensus and forge compromises before I can support him for bureaucratship. A significant factor in making up my mind was the fact that there is in this discussion a much higher ratio of opposers to supporters among "commons veterans" whose judgment as to the best interest of this project I trust. WJBscribe (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per the other oppose comments. I simply do not feel he is suited for bureaucratship. Ironically, I feel bureaucrats should not be really bureaucratic, but have good personal judgement instead that doesn't rely on blindly following policies. I don't feel Kanonkas has that. Majorly talk 22:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I often do not agree with Majorly, but this time I actually totally agree with the statement. Sorry. -- Cecil (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Støtte, no reason why not to. Sorry that I only just saw this... Garden. 10:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Of course --Caspian blue 13:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It was really hard for me to do this. If becoming a bureaucrat was a reward for being a good admin, Kanonkas would deserve it. If it was a reward for anything, Kanonkas would probably have earned it somehow. He is a great admin. Hell, I nominated him (and way earlier than I normally would). But bureaucrat is not admin+. It is not simply the next rung on the ladder all great admins eventually climb. No, it takes a certain sense of judgement, which I don't believe Kanonkas has shown. I have not witnessed a single event where I have seen him actively involve in solving user disputes or helping others reach a consensus (as he himself admits). Sure, his judgement may be good in nominating new admins or blocking sockpuppets, but it doesn't take a bureaucrat to do those things. Like MichaelMaggs noted, the self-aggrandizing bit is not becoming. Tone aside, things like "Either way, they trust & respect my opinion and judgement; at least it feels like that after all the positive replies I have gotten back." shouldn't even need to be said (except maybe by others). I also echo the concerns raised by Mike and Patrícia. I kept hoping for a satisfying answer to a question or something to push me into abstaining, but instead they have had the opposite effect. I'm sorry, Kanonkas. Rocket000 (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. Kanonkas is certainly a good administrator, yet each set of ops requires its own set of unique traits. Rocket000 makes good points; not certain we need a new bureaucrat at this time. Durova (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, per Finn's and Rocket000's comments above. Kanonkas is a good admin, but his answer to Lar's question below doesn't convince me that he's ready to become a 'crat; not following advice from an established bureaucrat or participating actively in what would become his daily tasks is not the best way to show the community how he could assume this role. –Tryphon☂ 21:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --Marcela (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Meisam (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read this through very carefully before deciding on my vote. However as time goes by & comments mount up I do see this quite clearly. Kanonkas is a hard working admin & popular, however those are not the prime requirement for being a 'crat anywhere. Indeed I would suggest that popularity is indicative of someone whose would not make a good candidate. Being a 'crat is about being happy to be unpopular if necessary & I do not see Kanonkas dealing with situations where real balance is required. As such I agree with much said in opposition above &  Oppose myself. --Herby talk thyme 09:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vóór - Silver Spoon (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  DəStək I know Kanonkas for his hard work across wikimedia projects , he was active, trustworthy and helpful everywhere that i have met him , Maybe some of above concerns could be valid but i am sure he will/can be a Good Crat as he is a very active admin And Good Admin.--Mardetanha talk 19:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I had to give this one a think, you are one user I have seen around more than most, and you and I have had a disagreement or two, but I still see you as a trusted and active administrator which should make a good 'crat. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I have seen Kanonkas do great work on this project and on en.wiki and I feel that he would not abuse the new set of tools and would do his best to put them to good use. Tiptoety talk 23:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I have respect for the admin work, but I do not feel convinced about his personal judgement and dispute resolution capabilities - especially after reading the Q&A below. Sorry. But do continue you good admin work here. --Slaunger (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is really hard for me too, because I have come to think highly of Kanonkas. But I also think that a 'crat needs to have very wide support from the thought leadership of a wiki... when I look at the names in opposition, I have to say "not yet". I remain hopeful that Kanonkas will continue to grow and take the feedback on board... and that next time he runs the issues being raised here will not still be issues. But 'cratship is not a reward for being popular, nor is it a reward for being a good admin. Per MichaelM, Finn, WJB, Mike.l, Cecil, Rocket and most of all, per Herby, who is one of the finest judges of people I know. With extreme regret,  Oppose... ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must regretfully  Oppose too. Maybe I am wrong and Kanonkas is right about how to make community decisions, but in any case I'd prefer to see more from questioning and proposals from him (and I'm sorry that the 'crats work related question hasn't been answered, though you're not forced to answer anyone, of course, but it would have helped a bit here) than "raising eyebrows" at the wrong venues, and at the wrong times. I do think you have the potential to be a good bureaucrat (you are, without any doubt, one of Commons best admins) but if you pass this RfB, the only thing I ask you is to remember that there is no rush and that above all, dialog and ability to compromise are key to good group work among 'crats. It's a weak oppose, but I'm not comfortable in supporting you now. Patrícia msg 10:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  voor Freaky Fries (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per User:MichaelMaggs comment on bot flag request and lack of candidate's work on current bot requests. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Rocket and Herby, --Polarlys (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I appreciate the arguments the opposition makes, but the only experiences I have had with Kanonkas have been good, and I think that several more bureaucrats on Commons would be of benefit. He seems to be an okay choice, despite some of the concerns pointed out by the opposition. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - I understand the opposes - but we're talking about the bureaucratship - not about the World domination. It's not much more than to be an admin. But - do we really need actuelly more Crats? Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Absolutely. Otourly (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, as for his (unsuccessful) effort to real conflict resolution in Gryffindor's de-adminship.--Túrelio (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support No elite Group, Sysop, Admin, Crats; all Are users, no one has more right. --Wayiran (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose m. E. für den Job nicht flexibel genug. --ST ○ 19:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per MichaelMaggs -- smial (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Mir scheint, hier liegt ein Mangel an Abwägung und Flexibilität vor. --Eva K. is evil 23:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Sure. — Aitias // discussion 19:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)  Oppose Canvassing is a no-go. Sorry. — Aitias // discussion 09:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per above. Synergy (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't in good conscience remain silent in this. I was canvassed during the first few days of this RfB (by the candidate). Even though I edit this site, very, very rarely, I'd like to think that the community would want this known. Before you ask, no, I have no proof. This was all done through IRC, with pms. I can only hope that the others (yes I know about the others Kanonkas) come forward before the time runs out on this request. This is not the conduct of a crat. Very sad. Synergy (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I nominated Kanonkas for adminship on en.wiki. One of the major reasons I nominated him was because of his excellent work here on Commons and I thought we could use his image expertise over at en. He's well respected and thoughtful - Two qualities which I believe are important as well. As I've gotten to know him more, I've realised that he's a true gent. I don't think it's appropriate for me to officially support Kanonkas (perhaps I'm not even allowed, I'm not sure of your local rules) because I hardly edit here, but I would like to express a sincere belief that Kanonkas would make a great bureaucrat here. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question - Kanonkas, you and I have been talking about this for some time... you'll recall that after your last run I urged you to do some things that demonstrated that you had the ability to forge compromises, and foster consensus. How many of those things that I suggested have you successfully driven to completion so far? Please feel free to elaborate on them as you see fit. ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't done any of the things you mentioned. But I have done judgment-type work over at Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers that may help you decide. I've been doing some work, such as participating in DRs occasionally, and closing and making comments on Flickr review requests. I've also nominated a number of users for adminship, and my judgement regarding potential admins has been good. I think. On the English Wikipedia, I've shown my judgement by participating in sock puppet investigation cases, and blocking clear sock puppets with a high rate of accuracy. As a matter of fact, all the sockpuppets I've blocked there have been uncontested, except in some cases where they were given a second chance. I know it's two different projects, but I think judgment on another project should be taken into account. As we're on about that, I haven't managed to make a closure on the big disputes here. I have studied disputes and learned from them, but showing it - no. I hope my honest reply to you helped you. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Eugene is correct in this comment. It is the minimum I would expect. --Herby talk thyme 16:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Dear Kanonkas, since you mentioned Gryffindor's de-adminship, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about this. First, a recap: while the de-adminship request was ongoing, you created User:Kanonkas/Dispute resolution/Gryffindor's renaming, parallel to the bureaucrat's discussion. The 'crats decision was to request de-adminship on Meta, but if the community wished to pursue discussion, it could be later decided (by the community) to grant the tools back to the user (or not). Now, a number of problems about how the 'crats would decide the matter were raised in the appropriate venue (the 'crat's chat talk page), but after our decision, there were no complains on how the final decision was made. Or rather, there were no direct complaints, but there were two comments of yours that puzzled me: one was what you said in this section, about attempting dispute resolution. My first question is: Do you think the bureaucrats should have followed the dispute resolution you outlined instead of discussing the community's vote? Another comment I noticed you made was this one. Would you mind commenting on why you were not happy on how the bureaucrat's handled the matter, and why you didn't bring such concerns to the bureaucrats at the time?
  • One additional question, unrelated to this situation: Do you think there is anything that could be improved in current practices related to 'crat work, that is, RfX consensus gathering, bots policies or rename policies? Thank you for your time. Patrícia msg 16:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Patricia.
To answer your first question - I think the bureaucrats should have been discussing the community vote (which they did), while also taking into account the subpage with proposals for proposed resolutions. Which I personally think was a good idea. A few users voiced their opinions, and their proposals. Personally I don't think the vote was fair, not at all. It was more like a person who did something wrong, and managed to get a mob after him - later taken to a direct de-admin request, and the filer didn't even try to resolve this in another place, such as COM:AN/U. Which is why I came up with the RfC based subpage.
To answer your second question - I think this could have been solved in another way. The bureaucrats could have raised the issue, if it was a valid request to begin with - as no sort of dispute resolution had even been tried. If it was deemed that this could have been solved in another way, as taking it to COM:AN/U, were it would be discussed further. Discussion over vote is my opinion in this case. But all in all, this was a rather hard case and some bureaucrats might have not known what to do. I cannot fully blame anyone in this instance. I just think this could have been resolved in a better way.
To answer your third question: I thought it was sufficient, to raise an eyebrow at the bureaucrats discussion page.
As to the last question of yours - I'll be giving this a further thought, please bear with me! Thank you. --Kanonkas(talk) 20:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last question - some thoughts: I believe that bots should be declared and approved, even if they are not given the bot flag. That way we can control bots more effectively, and we minimize bot related issues in some cases, and point them out. I think it's good to have a third party to take a look too, instead of just one user running a bot, and not noticing the issues a bot may at times create. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your patience; take your time for the last question, there is no rush. But I'd like to make a more direct question because I think I didn't see the direct answer I was expecting (perhaps I'm the one to blame for not making direct questions in the first place!). So let's make this a hypothetical situation: let's say you were a bureaucrat, in fact let's even say you were the only bureaucrat in the project, and you were faced with deciding on the Gryffindor de-adminship. What would you have done? Patrícia msg 14:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note with regret and concern that a candidate for the bureaucrat role has not responded to Patricia's last "additional question", posted three days ago at 16:19, 28 March 2009, in spite of being here and available for editing. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a bureaucrat you're supposed to follow the community's wish. As such I would look at both of the parties comments. There was a clear consensus that Gryffindor's renaming had no consensus to continue further, but at the same time this needed to be resolved in a proper way. As I stated above - this could not at all get a fair result, and should have been resolved in another way. Though, that's not up to me to decide, that is the community's. I evaluated both of the sides. I don't find myself in agreement to de-sysop an admin like this. There are some points as to why I mean so. See below;
I believe there was no community consensus - I believe both Gryffindor, and the other party should have been getting the opportunity to actually solve this in a responsible way, which is where dispute resolution comes in. Now I know I did vote in the request, but it was a neutral point of view of the case. I think that's also an essential thing, to be neutral and don't let your personal feelings get in the way, especially in cases like these. As such, I would close the request as no consensus to de-sysop, despite what the COM:DESYSOP policy stated at that time - "Although the process is not a vote, normal standards for determining consensus in an RfA do not apply. Instead, "majority consensus" should be used, whereby any consensus to demote of higher than about 50% is sufficient to remove the admin." Bureaucrats are supposed to follow the community's wish, which I've already said but also use their discretion. I also note that the de-sysop policy at that time stated "Please note this process should only be used for serious offenses in which there seems to be some consensus for removal; for individual grievances, please use Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems", which I agree with and believe there was consensus for. --Kanonkas(talk) 13:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. This IS how it should have come out. But it did not. And we need to work to change things so that should this happen again, it will be (because of the additional steps and additional chances to work for a resolution) much clearer what the outcome should be. Work with me and others, as we discussed, to get this change to happen. I believe if you can get this to happen, (by working with the community, showing thought leadership, and finding consensus for change) many of the opposes you got this time will melt away. ++Lar: t/c 19:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kanonkas, I agree with you that there was no community consensus. There was a de-adminship policy that was applied, a policy that strikes a 50% threshold, which in no way can ever be called a consensus. However, "bureaucrat discretion" is not a carte blanche but rather a margin of maneuver, and faced with a community vote, a bureaucrat is expected to carry out what policies say. There was little discussion prior to that de-adminship request, and that's unfortunate and there should have been more discussion before, but you cannot ignore two-thirds of voters, especially when some of them are long time Commons contributors and even admins, in order to do what you feel is fair. What Lar said is the way we should go: faced with such an unfortunate situation, we should take steps to avoid it happening again, by changing the way de-adminships can be requested, by establishing dispute resolution processes. But not by changing unilaterally the "rules of the game" while it's running - that could just make things worse in the long run, by seeding distrust in those who are trusted the most to follow policies. This was a lose-lose situation for everyone, especially because nothing positive came after it. There was all this energy input during the request and the subsequent 'crat chat, and after the decision, all interest died. That was the great tragedy. Thank you for your patience in replying my questions. Patrícia msg 21:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kanonkas, this request is currently opposed by 5 of the current 7 bureaucrats on Commons. 2 former Commons bureaucrats also oppose it. What weight do you give to their opinions that you are not yet ready for these additional responsibilities and how, if you were given bureaucrat rights in these circumstances, do you think it will affect your ability to act in that role? WJBscribe (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've heard from two different people on IRC now that there is the belief that there is some sort of coordinated vote against Kanonkas, notably among Commons bureaucrats. I would like to quash this sort of talk right here and now, in the fact that any opinion put forth on this RFB is solely based on those individuals who made the opinion. I cannot decide one way or another, I want to, however, express that targeting a group of people because they happen to share the same opinion as being something more sinister is wrong, and misguided. I can say with certainty that in this election, if people are voting against candidate it is because they don't believe the candidate is suitable for the position, and nothing more. Bastique demandez 17:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment I don't believe there is a organised opposition against Kanonkas, I am pretty sure that all people voting are adult or old enough to make there own decisions. And yeah I want Kanonkas to succeed, but please tell me we wont go blaming people for there opinion, let us just play fair and let people say about a candidate what the want and let them vote how the want without having to protect there vote :). I am a lot on IRC and in a lot of channels and I pretty much believe there is no secret crat cabal.. So please let we continue with this, and don't blame any of our crats for how the voted. Huib talk 20:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What's sinister is that the bureaucrats have en masse decided to oppose an RfB: they seem to think that Kanonkas does not fit within their ideal of a bureaucrat, so they oppose it. The optics of this are downright awful. I don't think it's right that the group's members whose Kanonkas is wishing join are virtually vetoing this; bureaucrats shouldn't be the ones to decide the outcome in an RfB by (!)voting in it (in the case of administrators, it's different, as bureaucrats make a decision, and the groups of admins is much bigger than the one of the bureaucrats). Maxim(talk) 21:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maxim: If Kanonkas was running on a platform of "the current 'crats are a bunch of buttheads who must be purged" that would be one thing. As a steward I've actually seen that very thing elsewhere, and worked to step in and make sure the election was fair. And if that were the case here I'd be taking any feedback very seriously and most likely abstaining. But he's not. He's saying he wants to be one of us. Well, I'm saying, and other crats are saying, he's not ready yet, in my/our view. I think he will be someday, hopefully someday soon, but not yet. There's nothing nefarious about that. The easy road would be to say "well he's popular, let's let it slide, give him the merit badge and not worry", but we care enough about Commons to want to take the harder road. Commons is a very special place to me. Some of the stuff that has happened here lately has dampened that specialness... things are more acrimonious and contentious and I think it takes a very deft touch to try to, without ignoring or slighting the views of any contributor, find a way to make things better. Our formal charter isn't "mediator" or "soother" or "wise person"... but informally we are thought leaders, people ask us our opinions and we should be worthy of that trust that the community places in us. Kanonkas is a great person. I enjoy working with him. And it really pains me that this is now turning into a session in which issues are raised... but in my view he's not ready yet. ++Lar: t/c 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)The current 'crats have not decided en masse to oppose this candidate, Bastique has made that clear and I think he (and the other 'crats) deserves to be believed when they say so. The alarming thing is that 5 out of 7 current 'crats, as well as two former 'crats, has individually and reluctantly chosen to oppose this request. They are the persons who knows better than anyone what it takes to be a bureaucrat at Commons. If the nominee and his supporters had argued that they were unhappy with the current 'crats and wanted something new, well - then it would have been a different issue. But so far noone has complained about the current 'crats (apart from some rather rude accisations of secret en masse voting). What I would like to have is an answer from Kanonkas to the question from WJScribe above, if this determination to appoint Kanonkas 'crat against the advice and votes of the current crats implies that the community does not trust those that are bureaucrats already I may have to change my mind - not about this vote but about Wikimedia Commons as a project. Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think that there is a determination to appoint Kanonkas against the advice and votes of the current bureaucrats. Actually, the crats joined in comparatively late and the first of them explicitly refered to your vote. I have come to the conclusion that the problem of this vote are the diverging understandings about the role of a bureaucrat. This does not come to a surprise as most of us come from different home projects with quite diverse traditions. I suggest to extend the description of a bureaucrats role in our policy such that it is more clear to everyone what is to be expected from a candidate. In addition, we could consider a requirement like that of Meta that requires a RFB to be endorsed by two bureaucrats. This would make sure that a candidate is ready to join in and has the trust of the community. And this would avoid such unfortunate runs as this one. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Regardless of the outcome of this we should indeed get something more specific written down. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Kanonkas, I hope you won't mind if I offer some unsolicited advice. As you know, judgement and sensitivity are two of the things Commons looks for in its bureaucrats, and pressing on to the bitter end with this in the face of oppositions by 5 of the 7 existing 'crats indicates to me at least that you are not (yet) ready to demonstrate those qualities. Paradoxically, the most 'crat-like action you could take now would be to withdraw gracefully and over the next few months work with Lar and the rest of us to develop your skills in that area. Withdrawing now would demonstrate that you can be selfless and sensitive to the views of the people you would be working with, and would be a point in your favour should you decide to try again later. The bureaucrats do not operate a closed club, and once the issues mentioned have been addressed you may find that the opposes (as Lar says) will melt away. Would you not feel better gaining the bit perhaps a few months down the line but with the support and encouragement of the existing bureaucrats? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping for this exact reaction from Kanonkas, which, as you say, would paradoxically show that he has indeed the qualities expected from a 'crat. It will unfortunately not seem as spontaneous anymore, but I still think it's the best and most honorable way to handle this situation. –Tryphon☂ 09:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kanonkas, we all know that you did not nominate yourself as candidate but you were asked for it by a fellow admin and you kindly accepted. Let me thank you for all the work you have done for the project and your willingness to contribute even more to it. As you can see from this vote nobody doubts your commitment to the project or your trustworthiness. Having said this, I agree with MichaelMaggs and Tryphon that it might be wise not to run this candidacy to the bitter end against (nearly) all the bureaucrats. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, since when do you get to decide in such a way who gets to join your little elite group? "pressing on to the bitter end with this in the face of oppositions by 5 of the 7 existing 'crats indicates to me at least that you are not (yet) ready to demonstrate those qualities."????? A bunch of other users support him, and obviously they believe Kanonkas fits the mold of a good bureaucrat. It's closing RfAs, but mostly renames and bots, and not an application to be join the council of supreme rulers of Commons. I think it is utterly wrong that since 5 out of 7 current bureaucrats feel that Kanonkas does not fit within the "ideal" that he must abandon this RfB. Lar comments above that Kanonkas isn't somehow ready according to their separate and vague bureaucrat standards; however, a resounding support is coming from the rest of the community. This RfB is to be decided by the community not by the crats opposing it. Currently, Jusjih is the only crat that hasn't commented in his RfB, and Bastique's the only 'crat participant to not have opposed. Bastique's statement was quite inaccurate (ParticiaR mentioned that this is being in fact privately discussed), so we seem to have no active 'crat (and to be frank, no crat--I elaborate a bit later on this) presently capable of performing an impartial close. As a result, I propose Kanonkas be promoted based on these following factors: at the time of my comment the tally is at 74% which reasonably close to the requisite 75%, which goes to 81% if the bureaucrat's votes are discounted; secondly, we cannot expect a bureaucrat to perform an impartial when the majority of his peers have offered opposing opinions while the community has overwhelmingly supported Kanonkas; and finally, the backroom discussion by the bureaucrats has cast a shadow over whether this RfB was fixed or not. We must default to a promotion here as there more than reasonable doubt as to whether the RfB was fair, and since the vast majority of non-crat users support Kanonkas, there exists rough agreement for making him a bureaucrat. Maxim(talk) 23:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Short comment: If this had closed after one week, and the closure had been made purely on counting votes, Kanonkas would not have become 'crat. 74% is not a "majority of at least 75%". There is no reason why present bureaucrats should not be eligeble to vote in a RfB. I hope (and believe) that your perception of the current bureaucrats as "little elite group" is not shared by many other users here. Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference here is the ridiculously vague reasons they're giving (which at the very least gives the impression they're acting like an little elite group), not having the exact type of judgment they're looking for. With this in mind the promotion line really becomes blurred (ie 74% is not that different from 75% or 76%). Maxim(talk) 00:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the guideline saying "at least 75%" this could not have been closed as successful after one week, and if the bureaucrats really wanted to use their rights to prevent a successful closure they could have closed yesterday as not promoted. Instead they chose to prolong the voting period with one week to see if a clearer result could be reached. I respect that you and others would like to promote K. to bureaucrat, but I will not accept you or any other bringing forward allegations of conspiracy, elitism or manipulation about the current 'crats just because they've voiced their opinion. Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim, what was mostly discussed privately was whether we should close and open a 'crat chat or if the time should be extended. If we had closed and not promoted Kanonkas based on a) percentage, and b) opposes from the little "elite group", would that have been better? I find it rather ridiculous the allegation that we are stopping Kanonkas from being a bureaucrat because of some reason that I have still failed to understand. We are allowing more time for people to express opinions and if there is a clearer consensus to promote Kanonkas on the 8th of April, then he'll be promoted. As for what Michael said, that was his suggestion, and Kanonkas is free to do whatever he wants. Or can't Michael express his opinion because he's a 'crat? Honestly, this attitude is not constructive at all, we are part of the community and we have the right to express our opinion as much as you do. When the time comes to decide, personal opinions are put aside and we wear the bureaucrat hats. You are free to suggest a better alternative, I'll be listening. Patrícia msg 10:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree that's how it should be, but i do doubt it's really how it's going on. Crats are humans, and some might not make differences between their personal feelings and their crat's work regarding this rfb. Despite what they do say or think. That kind of message is a crat's answer to a question regarding solely the technical aspect of the rfb, but the candidate got an answer by an opposing voter who point out candidat's behavior, try to get the candidate pull out, spread "We" in his message for talking about "crats opposing your candidature as a group", and tell the candidat he must receive crats' cabale's blessing before running for an rfb.
Saying "there is no opposition from crats as a group, but solely by single contributors who happens to be crats" require you guys stopping to say "we" all the time, and spamming this rfb with comments. Act like contributors, give your opinion, and than take a step aside and let the rfb running normally so that the community can express its feeling about the candidate... Some crats are doing that, take them as examples. It's just that i'm expecting from people with responsabilities to not get personnally involved too much in the rfb, because else it raise a conflict of interest.--Lilyu (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a personal thought about some messages above : nop, you dont give more time for the community to express more clearly its opinion, but rather you oppose to Kanonkas to become bureaucrat so you give a week prolongation and you try by social engeneering to get the candidat pull out. And some crats clearly wrote "we expect you to remove your candidature cause we dont want you, and we are the crats". It's not what i feel "being impartial" means to me.--Lilyu (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have made some fairly questionable statements on here Lilyu - frankly this is the daftest and forces me to comment. Why on earth does allowing some more people to express their opinion mean what you say it does? The decision is not clear - allowing more time seems perfectly sensible - there is no rush as it is not as though the community actually needs further crats. Leave things alone & let the community have their say rather than this constant nagging.--Herby talk thyme 17:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the claims that bureaucrats are trying to veto this RFB are ridiculous. Bureaucrats are still members of the community, and as such, still have a right to give their opinion on a candidate. Bureaucrats are not the only people who have opposed. I rarely oppose people, and I have done here, of my own accord. Let's assume that the trust people once gave the bcrats is still there, and we'll assume they'll close this according to what the community thinks. Majorly talk 14:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Kanonkas&oldid=66955765"