Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Clementina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crat note[change source]

  • Bureaucrat observation - I have not voted in this RfA, so I believe I am able to participate in its closing process. Honestly, I'm stumped about what to do. The opposition is strong in numbers, but I must question some of the arguments presented. There seem to be a couple other bureaucrats who have not yet commented, so I would suggest initiating a "crat chat" when the RfA is due to close, so we can make a fair and consensual decision. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Juliancolton, there are still over 30 hours to go in this RfA. Do you think it is really appropriate to make statements about questioning the opposition's arguments at this point? I think it unduly influences the remaining 30 hours. It reads, almost, like you are hoping to close this as a passing RfA based on arguments, but do not want to do so because of the numbers/percentages at this time. Shouldn't we be waiting to see what happens over the next 30 hours instead of drafting our closing statements right now? Either way (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not. I question your neutrality when you write that "The opposition is strong in numbers, but I must question some of the arguments presented". Your eagerness to close this RfA, as demonstrated by you posting this comment 30 hours early, is indicative of your extremely biased view. A POV-pushing candidate, who added a copyright violation (see User talk:Classical Esther/Archive 7#Tsunami) to Wikipedia a scant two months ago is unfit to be an administrator. Add the account security concerns to this mess and I am convinced that this user should not be an administrator. Your disparagement of the opposes is highly inappropriate. I ask that you recuse from closing this RfA.
    • This is a POV-pusher because this user would block others because "I honestly don't think God would be really pleased with such conduct". Furthermore, the user wrote, "...It only dirties His name without doing any good. A good Christian should write a VGA and promote peace instead of getting involved in angry wikidrama". This preaching from the high pulpit of RfA demonstrates an inability to, as Either way kindly put it, "keep religion out of her mindset". Codedon (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My job as a bureaucrat is not to agree or disagree with your claims of the candidate as a voter. It is perfectly acceptable to contemplate the end result well in ahead of time, and I've done so often with no issues as of yet. Simply scanning through the discussion at the final ending date does not paint a complete picture of the RfA. –Juliancolton | Talk 11:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect to do this. At the time of the closing, if the closing crat determines a chat needs to be initiated, then they will initiate one. That is usually par for the course. For what it is worth, I don't see the need at this point in time. Thank you, Jon@talk:~$ 07:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, in a borderline case, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliancolton (talk • contribs)
You make it sound wrong should I choose to close this without initiating a chat. This is incorrect to do, I may very well close this without a chat. I may initiate one. I might not even have the opportunity to close. So many courses of action could occur, it is far to soon to decide this now. Jon@talk:~$ 11:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please just wait until the time is up and discuss then? It's really useless to discuss it yet. Thanks -Barras talk 11:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of the opposes used account security as the single oppose reason, so yes, that being resolved, it doesn't change the rest of the oppose reasons. I would also like to point out that the RFA was 10 percentage points below the recommended level, and I believe that the 'crats may have thought that 65% was the recommended level. If a 'crat could please go into greater detail over how this decision was made, it would be appreciated. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Closing notes[change source]

As requested above, I will post a detailed analysis of my decision shortly, but it will not be in a few minutes. Probably more like a couple to a few hours. But I will post one. Jon@talk:~$ 18:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I considered all the concerns regarding account security resolved. Any oppose relating that was discounted. The oppose regarding propensity to push religion was discounted due to the lack of anything substantiating. I also discounted the "more admins are not needed" arguement because that argument has nothing to say about the suitability of the candidate concerned. The point of an RFA is to check the suitability of the candidate. With those discounted, I found that the candidate had consensus for promotion. Very respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 19:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So in other words, you discounted all the oppose reasons, even though 8 users opposed, including several respected members of the community. Even though you may not have found them to be good reasons, the fact that several users thought they were (including a 'crat) must mean something. It seems to me that you ignored that. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I voted in favor of the candidate, I share Griffin's concerns, because from what I see, the site does seem to traditionally value votes in such cases based on numeric data and not the respective strength of articles, and because discounting the "against" votes seems to unfairly discount some well reasoned arguments, which even one 'crat who voted for the candidate gave some credence too (saying that the account security questions were legitimate/fair game). Kansan (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make everyone happy. I did my best. Jon@talk:~$ 21:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What a ridiculously bad call. When that many people have concerns, and they are well founded security concerns. Which have in no way been solved because all 3 people still are in the same location. You don't dismiss those arguments. At the very least you should have stopped to talk about it. I really have no respect at all for this call. You have put the wiki in pretty big danger in my opinion. And that is not even getting into the fact that they are so far below the accepted promotion level. Its not even a borderline case. -DJSasso (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having all 3 people in the same location is fine, especially when the account's password has been changed and the candidate's computer is her personal computer. In addition, with the possibility to lock the computer's screen, the chance of her account being compromised by her sisters is probably less than getting your own account compromised while editing over an unencrypted wireless connection. Chenzw  Talk  02:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend you pull the flag until a chat can happen. Had I not voted in it. I would have pulled the flag already pending a chat. -DJSasso (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just going to stick my nose in here real quick. I opposed the candidate receiving the flag. I also have a great deal of respect for the calls of the 'crats here at simple. Now that the flag has been given, I would be opposed to it's removal unless there is a serious disregard to policy. I trust that Clementina has done all in her power to keep her account safe. We must keep in mind that the admin tools are not the keys to the universe. If policy is broken, there are tools to revert the issue, and also tools to remove the admin flag. NVS made the call to give the admin flag, and I don't think we should override that decision unless policy is broken by Clementina.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised when I saw this close. Like Djsasso, I have no respect for it. Though I still don't buy your dismissal of the account security concerns, I question the copyright concerns. How did you dismiss those? Codedon (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Codedon, a lot can change in two months.
Not respecting a closure undermines the community. Whilst I, like Kansan, have serious questions about the way this RfA was closed (despite my support), I agree that rendering the closure void would be a bad idea. DJSasso's statement that "the wiki [is] in pretty big danger" due to this promotion is a rather strong statement to make without any sort of backing evidence. That said, there have been RfAs where the candidate has been trusted but came to be a real danger (think Ecoleetage), and the opposes have proven to be wise. If anything else needs to be said, it should be said now. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 06:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the community has decided on a percentage that a candidate needs to at least be close to to pass. That percent is 75%. This canddate was 9 votes (10%) away from where she needed to be to pass. That is a huge number. And looks to me like a big case of I don't care what the community thinks I am going to do what I want anyways. This is bad enough I would actually demand he remove his own bit. -DJSasso (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Codedon: I wish I could have answered your question before the RfA closed. The copyright violation in question is very small (and would certainly be dismissed by a court, although that's not important) and quite a long time ago. It is entirely insignificant in comparison to the hundreds of good changes that she has made. I can tell you feel strongly that this candidate should not be/have been promoted, but perhaps it's time to take a step back, since you've said your bit more than once. There's no need to keep bringing up the same objection(s), especially insignificant ones such as a single small old copy vio. Thanks! EhJJTALK 12:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your attempt to stifle dissent. Your baseless concerns are noted, but duly set aside. The copyright concerns are not at all petty. What Clementina did in this edit egregiously breached international copyright laws. Even more alarming is that she plagiarized this content ad verbum, passing it off as her own work. This smacks of dishonesty, naiveté, and an inability to admit self error, as proven by her lack of reply to the thread on her talk page. This is just a harbinger of what she'll do with her admin tools. Codedon (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you see my advice as an "attempt to stifle dissent". Your concerns about Clementine have been noted, time and time again. I am merely concerned that you are not aware of our "one-strike" guideline for users who are blocked/banned on other projects. Just to inform you that you may be blocked without warning if your actions are seen as sufficiently disruptive or if you purposefully violate our policies, such as my attacking or disparaging other users. Please do not see this as a threat. Our projects needs as many users as possible and I welcome you to stay and contribute. But please aim to resolve issues with other users rather than escalate them. You are welcome to discus this with me or any other administrator. Thanks! EhJJTALK 14:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me to the pertinent policy page concerning the "one-strike" guideline. Codedon (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It was first discussed here and has been added to the policy here--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So this became the official policy overnight? Codedon (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has been de facto policy since then; your question alerted us that it was not yet de jure. So now it is. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 07:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Codedon; the one-strike rule matters not frankly, I could simply block you as a user blocked on another WMF wiki as has always been allowed. You have been given the priviledge to be permitted to edit here. As I told you on your talk page, you have been warned about trolling and policy violations, and if you do these, you'll be blocked indefinately. fr33kman 09:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[change source]

  • I want to take a moment to address the concerns listed above.
  • With regards to the security concerns, there was no substantiating evidence that a breach was done with malice and intent. One of our core values on the project is the assumption of good faith. For a one time thing, where the candidate has resolved concerns with account security "good/best practices" we as crats can use discretion and consider those concerns resolved. Which is what I've done here. Now, if account compromise occurs, as Chen stated, we have a system in place for that. We must remember the application of good faith. This goes for RFA as well. We don't count votes here, we weigh arguments and determine consensus.
  • The copyright concern was not shared by multiple people, it was one concern. Now, with that being said, it was weighted as such. Questions like, Does the group share this concern?, Is this a pattern, or a one time occurrence?" These are all questions a closer has to ask when they close an RFA.
  • Propensity for religious POV pushing. I have yet to see one set of DIFF on the RFA to substantiate. Barring that, it is difficult to really make that a damning argument. I was unconvinced that this would be an issue. It lacked some kind of substance. I know diffs were requested, but I never saw the opposing editor provide them. I can assure you, that with DIFFS, the argument would have been stronger.
  • With those concerns discounted/resolved: If you are vote counting, the RFA became in the discretionary zone, actually, it was already there. If you are not vote counting, then my rationale should make sense to you.
  • Pull the flag and start a chat I think this is wholly unwise. I stand behind my decision, and any pulling of the flag should occur in a DRFA. We need to respect each other, and respect decisions made, to do otherwise undermines crats and the community and I strongly advise against pulling that flag without a DRFA. To do so would be disrespecful to the candidate, the crat, and the community here. Thank you for your time on this, Jon@talk:~$ 08:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine expect to see a DRFA on both of you. She was 10% (9 votes) below where the community requires her to be to pass an RFA. You ignored the communities wishes. So you failed in your obligations. The discretionary zone is 5%... she was well beyond that. Maybe you didn't realize or maybe you forgot but the new percent to pass requirement is 75% not 65%. It is disrespectful to the community to blatantly ignore them like this. -DJSasso (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I was not referring to a DRFA on the crats, I was referring to in order to remove her flag, it should be via the process, or some kind of centralized community discussion. However, it is within your rights to DRFA whomever you wish. Warmly, Jon@talk:~$ 11:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that. I think the fact you blew a call this badly. ie she wasn't even close to the required passing mark is reason to also remove yours. Especially when you aren't/weren't willing to even discuss with your other crats. It speaks to me that you were going to promote her no matter what. -DJSasso (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop threatening to "take my bit" this helps nothing. We are not counting votes, and we never have been. We are assigning weights to arguments, and rationales. Let us open this chat. Do not remove her bit unless we find consensus among the crats during our chat. Also, I ask that any DFRA you may start on me or the other crat be treated as a separate issue once we conclude this RFA issue. Jon@talk:~$ 11:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 To avoid controversy, I will not use the administrative tools until a decision can be reached about my RFA. With deep respect, —Clementina talk 11:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please note that two bureaucrats (by accident) actually closed this RfA. There was no communication whatsoever during that time period, but both bureaucrats closed it with the same result. I too, stand by my decision, and will not remove the flag unless a new RfA or similar community discussion decides otherwise. Chenzw  Talk  12:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur! This is not an issue for Clementina, she is innocent of anything here. This is a matter between bureaucrats, and it's up to us to fix, or forget. fr33kman 13:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: As there seems to be a general agreement to leave me sysopped at least for the present and desysop me in an emergency, I will resume using my tools to delete and clean up vandalism for now. I hope there are no objections. Warmly, —Clementina talk 04:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the POV-pushing, diffs were not needed nor were they requested. But quotes directly from the RfA have been stated to be characteristic of a POV-pusher. At the top of this page, I reproduced some of those quotes. Furthermore, her userpage is a major repository of everything Jesus-related. Following a quote from the Bible is a sentence that bestows a spate of utmost respect and lavish praise of Jesus. Codedon (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why quoting from the Bible or being open about one's religious beliefs is a problem. If anything, I applaud her for being open about what her POV is. Kansan (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright to say, "I believe in Jesus", but praising excessively and making it really conspicuous leads me to believe she is here to recruit, despite her claim that she is not. Have you read the quotes above? I reiterate, this is a POV-pusher because this user would block others because "I honestly don't think God would be really pleased with such conduct". Furthermore, the user wrote, "...It only dirties His name without doing any good. A good Christian should write a VGA and promote peace instead of getting involved in angry wikidrama". This preaching from the high pulpit of RfA demonstrates an inability to, as Either way kindly put it, "keep religion out of her mindset". Codedon (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crat chat[change source]

Could the crats weigh in here please? Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 11:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, I'll point out that I voted to support the candidate. As such, I am not eligible to close it, but I can give my opinion on the RfA as a whole. Personally, had a not voted, and given a 15/8 distribution of opinions, I would have to look closely at the many users who opposed her promotion. While I believe many of their reasons to oppose are not strong, I can't discount that there are two crats and four admins (6 of the 8) opposed to the RfA. To me, that is very concerning. I would have either extended the deadline for the RfA, if I felt that either more users may come by or that some of the current users may be convinced to change their vote. Otherwise, I would have put the RfA on Hold and held a crat chat to get opinions from those that had yet not expressed theirs. Clearly this is a controversial candidate, as I don't think so many respected users would oppose unless there were some good reasons for it. At the same time, Clementine has two crats and five admins (7/15) plus many other active users who supported her candidacy, so I can't discount it outright. Given what has happened, I have no recommendations at this time, except to not move too hastily. Let's see some other crat opinions in this section and then we can move on. For now, let's leave DRfA as an option if this discussion stalls or if Clementine makes mistakes as an admin. Personally, I'm inclined to leave her sysopped and see how she does, but then again, I supported her initially. EhJJTALK 12:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two crats who did not vote made the same closing decision. This can't be ignored and holds a good deal of weight. However, neither can the opinions of the people who voted in this RFA. We've been here in this situation before, more than once frankly. DJSassos RFB comes to mind as a similar (not entirely) fiasco. In that election, the closing crat (me) decided to weigh the strength of arguments. This was, and is, controversial on this project. We have stated time-and-again that our bureaucrats have a thing called discretion, but we have also seemed to indicate that any crat who does anything other than simply count numbers is doing a bad thing. In this case two uninvolved bureaucrats did the same thing. They weighed the opinions, rather than count the numbers. It is no suprise that I approve of this type of thinking. I am not saying this because of this RFA, because I nominated Clementina and so supported her, I'm saying it because I believe in allowing the crats discretion. We voted them in, meaning that we trust them to do what they consider is the right thing. If we remove discretion (and frankly it is too late because precident has been set many times now), then we should remove crats from closing RFAs and RFBs; a bot could do it just by counting votes. I think that would be a bad idea. When I closed DJSassos bureaucrat election as promoted, it caused a large debate and involved steward actions. We don't use stewards for desysopping. The community decided at that time that crats did indeed have discretion. I even said in my own RFB election that I would weigh the pros and cons of votes and discount or count them as I saw fit. I was still elected, and overwhelmingly so! I say Clementina must stay promoted. Crats can desysop her in an emergency if needed, which I doubt. I have, again, asked for evidence of wrong doing on her part, and still have been given none. She has done all that can be expected of her to secure her account. Once again, dispite everything, two crats made the same decision to close as promoted. Let's move on. fr33kman 13:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have said in the past, we do give crat's some discression, but we don't give them absolute discression or we wouldn't hold the RFA in the first place. There is a reason, the community came to a decision that a candidate should be in the area of 75% support. Its because the community as a whole determined below this number to be no-consensus and that if someone didn't get to this near this point, then no matter the strength of the arguements there was clearly a fractured opinion in the community. This candidate was 9 whole votes away from having the percent that the community has decided is where they should be. Discression would be promoting someone who was below by a vote or two, or not promotting someone who was above by a vote or two. Obviously I have no problem with that kind of discression. But this candidate would have needed 9 more people to vote support to get to the percent determined by the community as passing range. There are clear security issues with this candidate, as such with no clear support mandate, we should err on the side of caution, not the other way around. Its not as if she can't run again in the future and has had time to change a portion of the communities opinions. I am shocked anyone would even think this was remotely close enough to use discression. She was 9 whole votes away from the range. It blows my mind. -DJSasso (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all I want to say that I have voted in the RfA and opposed her, so my view may has a conflict of interests. I think it's the best to leave her rights as it is now. The crat has made the decision and to remove the sysop bit now may scare her away. For my view, it would be very unfair to remove her bit afterwards. I don't agree with the decision, but it is made. I strongly agree with Djsasso here. As she was nine votes away from 75 percent it can hardly be called discretion. As Djsasso stated above, if there are only one or two or maybe three votes around the necessary percentage, then it is discretion. This percentage clearly would have been a unsuccessful RfA or may on hold with a crat chat in first place. I think it may be the best to say for future RfAs to say crats have a discretion of 5 percent and crat chat can be hold about 10 percent around the necessary percentage. Other cases are clear cuts and get either promoted or not. To weight the supports and opposes is of course correct, but to discount all as it looks like the problem is resolved isn't a good way either. We should make some kind of rule how far our discretion goes. As for now, I'd say leave her promoted and see what happens. Start a discussion about what discretion is and when a crat chat should be held. -Barras talk 17:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can gather from the above comments, we note a misunderstanding in the 65% -> 75% change, we also note that this RFA will be held as successful for the candidate with the caveat that is does not set a precedent, we have started a community discussion on crat discretion. If I've stated this correctly, I'm going to inform the candidate after a few hours that she may continue using the tools, I know she is limiting her usage pending an outcome. If I'm incorrect, please let me know below so we can get this right. Thank you all for the comments, Jon@talk:~$ 16:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Clementina&oldid=7307569"