Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2012-05/User:Connel MacKenzie for de-sysop and de-checkuser

• Voting on:

  Connel MacKenzie (talk • contribs • rights) is still a sysop and a checkuser, but he seems to have gone inactive. According to his contributions and his deleted contributions, it's been almost two years since he's made an edit, aside from one edit to his talk-page in October 2010 and one in October 2011, each time responding to a comment from several weeks earlier. (These edits do at least suggest that he has occasionally viewed Wiktionary while logged in, but they're not real "activity" IMHO.) According to his public logs and his patrol log, he hasn't taken a single admin action in more than three years, aside from patrolling a single edit in June 2010; and according to the history of WT:CU, his last checkuser action was more than four years ago. So, I hereby propose that his admin and checkuser rights be removed without prejudice. Obviously, if he ever becomes active again, we can vote to restore either or both of those rights. (Note: Often these desysopping-due-to-inactivity votes have a clause that adminship can be restored even without a vote, but I disagree with that clause both in general and in this specific case, so I won't include such a clause unless other editors insist on it.) —Ruakh_TALK 16:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have sent him an email to tell him of the vote. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oops, I'd actually already sent one; I guess I should have mentioned that, sorry. —Ruakh_TALK 17:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Note. In the event that Connel doesn't respond to either of the emails (or to this vote), we can always execute the result of this vote anyway - but reinstate him without a vote if he ever wants to come back. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think his responding to the vote is necessary for executing the results of the proposal as proposed (which explicitly requires a vote states that it's not including a clause not requiring a vote for reinstatement). In any event, he has noted his knowledge of the existence of the vote (on its talkpage).​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Vote starts: 00:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 24:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Support (if he agrees) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

   Note to whoever's tallying: Connel hasn't agreed AFAICT; if that's true (and remains so), then this vote doesn't count.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Support Mglovesfun (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Support Ƿidsiþ 16:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Equinox ◑ 15:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

   Voted changed: Support since Connel hasn't stated a desire to keep them, or responded to this vote at all other than to cast nasturtiums at the proposer's motives on the talk page. —Angr 16:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

5. Support de-checkuser-ing; abstain with regard to de-sysop-ing. - -sche (discuss) 07:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Oppose Jcwf (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Weakly oppose desysoping: his recent activity, though minor, show he's still, at least somewhat, keeping up with the community. Weakly support decheckusering: although he's still, as I just noted, somewhat active, he's highly unlikely to be first to notice a request for checkuser, andI can't see that he needs the access to personal information that a checkuser has. (I'm not sure he needs the access to sysop tools, either, but no harm if he has them.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose I'd have supported removal of the checkuser rights immediately, but sysop... no. -- Liliana • 23:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

   So do you support decheckusering and oppose desysoping, then? That can be a result of this vote.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

   Is it too late to split up the vote into sections about removing each kind of his rights? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   Probably, and it's not really necessary: people can do what I did.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   Yeah, that's what I meant. -- Liliana • 09:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

4. Oppose Yair rand (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose Maro 00:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose Connel MacKenzie (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

   Isn't there a rule against these kind of votes? I know admins can't vote for themselves in elections. -- Liliana • 06:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

   There may be, and I do not oppose, such a rule, but I point out this precedent (for an admin voting against his own desysopping). - -sche (discuss) 07:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

   "I know admins can't vote for themselves in elections". Really? I've never come across this, evidence please? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

   Sounds like a great rule, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist. See WT:BP#Voting for oneself. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

7. Oppose since Connel has voted Oppose himself, indicating a desire to keep the bits. —Angr 12:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Abstain --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Pardon my ignorance, but what precisely is the point of removing his rights? The fact that Connel has rights and doesn't use them doesn't hurt the Wiktionary community in any way, does it? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

   The primary concern I've seen mentioned in previous desysop cases AFAIR is that his account be compromised. Normally, of course, that's not a major consideration; but if he's not using his tools anyway....​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

   An excellent question. Speaking only for myself, I see the reasons as these, among others:

   • Even if there is no harm, there is also no benefit.
   • Someone who is not active should not be taking admin actions, because (s)he won't know what the community's current standards are (and even something as simple and seemingly obvious as "vandalism is bad" can't be applied without, say, knowing our current block practices), and because (s)he won't be around to explain said actions if there's a dispute or an annoyed user.
   • Someone who is not active should not appear in lists of administrators, because (s)he will not be helpful to someone looking for an administrator. Note that we even ask admins to indicate their time-zones so that users can predict when they'll be available. (I actually think the time-zone thing might be overkill, but still, you see the point.)
   • Administrators represent the community to new users, and the current community should decide who its administrators are, rather than having old editors who were administrators years ago in a different community suddenly come back and represent them. (This is also an argument for having administratorships expire after a term even for active contributors. I'm not proposing that, because I think the usefulness-to-bureaucracy ratio would probably be too low, but for inactive administrators it's more straightforward.)
   • All of the above go double for checkusers. I believe Meta also requires (1) that we de-checkuser an editor who's been inactive for a long time and (2) that we maintain a minimum number of active checkusers so they can oversee each other.

   —Ruakh_TALK 12:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

   Re "I believe Meta also requires... that we de-checkuser an editor who's been inactive for a long time", all I find on point is "Any user account with CheckUser status that is inactive for more than a year will have their CheckUser access removed.", which is ambiguous: is it the account or the status that's inactive? I assume the former, especially since not using checkuser tools would I think normally not be called having inactive checkuser status. Since technically Connel's been active within the past year, although only slightly, I don't think we need to worry about the meta rule. That said, your other points are good ones.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

   Re: "Since technically Connel's been active within the past year, although only slightly, I don't think we need to worry about the meta rule": Yes, I agree, and I should have made that explicit. (After all, if I had thought that it literally applied in this case, then I would have made the checkuser deactivation request wherever it is that that goes, rather than starting a vote whose result wouldn't be upheld anyway.) —Ruakh_TALK 16:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

   @Ruakh: honestly, only your second point applies, IMO. I guess the bureaucracy of it all is just getting to me a little. On a side note, will we need a new section in WT:Administrators/Former? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Fails 4-5. Maro 19:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  Those numbers are half the story. AFAICT, by the end of the voting period, we have

  • for decheckusering, 6 in support (Ruakh, Mglovesfun, Widsith, Equinox, msh210, Liliana) and 3 in opposition (Jcwf, Yair, Maro), or 67%; and
  • for desysoping, 4 in support (Ruakh, Mglovesfun, Widsith, and Equinox) and 5 in opposition (Jcwf, msh210, Liliana, Yair, Maro), or 44%.

  ​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  • It seems to fail 4-7, I was actually gonna strike my vote, until I realized it wouldn't matter anyway, as both 4-7 and 3-7 are clear failures. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • If we take 24:00 on 24 May as the end of the voting period, it's 5–5 for desysopping, since at that point I had not yet changed my support vote to an oppose vote. If we acknowledge that voting extended past the point until Maro posted the decision, then it's 4–7 for desysopping. —Angr 21:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

But de-checkusering passes, doesn't it? - -sche (discuss) 00:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The vote was for de-sysop AND de-checkuser, and it failed. There wasn't separate votings, one for de-sysop and the second for de-checkuser. Maro 15:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

And even if we consider those votes where the voter distinguished between de-sysop and de-checkuser, there were 5 people supporting removing checkuser (Mglovesfun, Widsith, Equinox, -sche, Liliana) and 5–7 people opposing (Jcwf, msh210, Yair rand, Maro, and me; Connel himself if his vote counts; and SemperBlotto if his "Support (if he agrees)" is taken to mean "Oppose (if he doesn't agree)" as opposed to "Abstain (if he doesn't agree)". —Angr 15:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

But if we discount the votes that were late, then it becomes a 5-4 pass. -- Liliana • 16:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean 5-4 fail. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean 5-5? 3 votes were late. Maro 17:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen so many conditional, ambiguous, late and otherwise contestable votes. Wouldn't it be the most appropriate decision to call this a no consensus, with the usual effect that the status quo prevails? -- Gauss (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think "no consensus" is the only reasonable way to call the result. If someone were to start a vote solely for de-checkusering Connel, that might have a shot, but I don't think we can claim a decision off of this vote in good conscience. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me (what Gauss said). Anyway, 67% is not necessarily passage.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No consensus. -- Gauss (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)