Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Kanonkas (de-bureaucrat)

Kanonkas

 Remove = 25;  Keep = 0;  Neutral = 1 – 100%. Result: Remove. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Vote

Scheduled to end: 11:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Following the discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Kanonkas not active I request de-bureaucrat and de-admin of User:Kanonkas. While the user formally meets the requirements defined in Commons:Administrators/De-adminship which are 5 admin actions on Commons in the past 6 months, the user appears to be intentionally right at the very border of this limit.

• He's made no contributions to Commons since June 2015 and only 56 contributions since November 2010. His last engagement with the wider community here was in February 2012 and since that time, a couple of posts on User:Natuur12's talk page in July 2014 is the total extent of his interaction with any Commons user at all.
• He's uploaded nothing to Commons since 2009.
• His admin log shows he has only performed 102 admin actions since November 2010 and these come in bursts lasting merely minutes and roughly six months apart. User:Stemoc notes that many of the actions are "blocking proxies which don't even edit on commons". This can only really be described as gaming the system to retain the admin bit.

The roles at Commons:Administrators and Commons:Bureaucrats expect "experienced and trusted members of the community", which appears to be no longer fulfilled by the user. --Krd 11:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support de-bureaucrat and de-admin; see my comment at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Kanonkas_not_active --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support de-bureaucrat and de-admin per the discussion at AN/U. Jee 12:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support de-crat and de-admin, this is not something I expect from a crat/admin. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 13:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support de-crat and de-admin Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support de-crat and de-admin. I don't think formalities should substitute real participation. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral I expect the user in question (who is clearly alive and have internet access every half year) to respond before proceeding to right removal. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support de-crat and de-admin. Six years of gaming the system. Unbecomming of an admin. Natuur12 (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support de-crat and de-admin - current (lack of) activity is insufficient to remain uptodate about what's going on here - Jcb (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I think that periods of inactivity are normal and expected, and we should be understanding of them. However, the ANU conversation seems to strongly indicate that the community believes there is a point at which an admin has 'functionally' already resigned their status as an actual 'administrator', and is merely seeking to simply retain the bit itself for no useful purpose. Kanonkas has passed well beyond that point, and advanced permissions are not something that the holder has an eternal 'right' to... we serve merely at the pleasure of the community, and the community appears displeased. Revent^talk 17:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• {{Neutral}} mostly per Zhuyifei1999. My thoughts are not crystalised yet. I will wait for Kanonkas' response before making a full decision. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 17:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  Changing to a  Support. I share the same opinions as Revent. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 06:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Support not enough activity to stay abreast with changes to policy and the goings on of the website. Also what Revent said above. Reguyla (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Weak support While I do agree that this is gaming the policy/system, the matter of fact id that they have performed the minimum amount of needed admin actions...I'd rather see us change that policy to "allow" this de-bureaucrat-vote, and not let this vote change the policy...if that makes sence...(t) Josve05a (c) 18:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Per AN/U. Wrt Josve05a's point about policy, I disagree that on a Wiki we need policy to micromanage the community. The rules are there to document community consensus, not the other way around. The community can always make ad hoc decisions. -- Colin (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  Can one contradict the other? Seems arbitrary. -- Mentifisto 20:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  @Mentifisto: Administrators serve at the pleasure of the community... policies merely describe 'past' consensus, they are not 'law'. The community has the right to decide that they want to revoke admin rights because of a bad haircut, if there is a consensus to do so. The overall result of these various discussions seems to support the idea that editors who are no longer 'functionally' serving as administrators should have the rights removed, until they are once again active and working on areas where the community finds it useful for them to have the buttons. Revent^talk 22:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  How about those with no hair? -- Mentifisto 00:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Support, I agree with Revent. Trijnstel_talk 22:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support de-bureaucrat and de-admin. Not active here and not really a trusted member of the community any more (It's hard for me to trust someone I've never run into even once in my 4+ years as an admin). I don't doubt Kanonkas is a great person, but the crat and admin bits are for use/service not status. lNeverCry 00:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - as per my earlier comments...not a fan of people with power abusing their rights and i hope this sets a precedent...--Stemoc 02:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support de-bureaucrat and de-admin. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support de-bureaucrat and de-admin, somone loging in for years just to perform 6 actions every 6 months is just gaming the system to keep tools he obviously doesn't need. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support de-bureaucrat and de-admin, Kanonkas clearly isn't active, they do not need the user rights. However, I think this highlights the need to have a better system for removing the bit from inactive admins/'crats. ColonialGrid (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support de-bureaucrat and de-admin, Kanonkas hasn't been active since June 2015 so it's rather pointless them keeping the tools. –Davey2010^Talk 21:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support de-bureaucrat and de-admin. Yann (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support. Not even close to enough activity to justify bureaucrat or admin imo. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support. Following Krd's request. Marcus Cyron (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I know some folks do go through periods of inactivity and have to make the minimum number of actions to keep the rights sometimes... but for several years!? --Rschen7754 00:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support: de-bureaucrat and de-admin per above. --sasha (krassotkin) 08:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Why is this a vote? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 11:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  I don't understand the question. What do you suggest it to be? --Krd 11:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  @Krd: After asking ToAruShiroiNeko personally, I think this was 'why does this even need a vote'. Revent^talk 23:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  I do not see the point of this vote. If someone is inactive, just take away the access. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  cause "technically" (as per policy) due to him gaming the system, he is active..so this had to be created to over write that policy because no crat could remove his right by claiming the user is "inactive per policy" (as he is not inactive) so they would be breaking policy by doing so....yes, hilarious...but again, I hope this sets a precedent for a discussion on changing the somewhat outdated policy in regards to this..--Stemoc 02:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  @Stemoc: To be honest, policy is a spectacularly terrible way to fix problems. We drafted a policy because a generic "inactive" was not good enough for some people. I myself almost hit the 6 month mark before due to my real world related issues. I too had to "game" the system to give myself a little more time. I think the arbitrary time restriction isn't needed. Bureaucrats judgement of "inactivity" is fine by me. If an inactive user decides to be active again, their access can be restored. The idea here is to not have ghost admins or bureaucrats. If someone is barely active despite a "reactivation" their subsequent requests would be denied. So in essense I favor common sense over written policy. It is much harder to "game" common sense. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Stemoc He isn't "active" per policy. He just avoids being declared "inactive" wrt the definition for automatic removal of rights. The fact that policy describes one automatic removal mechanism (a certain arbitrary degree of inactivity wrt admin actions) and one community removal (abuse of power) does not mean those are the only means of removal or that removal by some other measure (haircut quality) is "breaking policy". Our policy pages are largely incomplete and only document a few common situations. -- Colin (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I suppose that is the very existential purpose of selfies: to judge the fluff on top. -- Mentifisto 08:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I understand you are keen to make jokes, but surely you could make a better one of the fact that 12/14 edits made by your account since May 2015 are related to this case and of the two edits that were not, one was to tweak your style settings. Please take a moment to reflect on the wide selection of views from the community about what constitutes gaming the system, and how the quality of participation in this project should be pertinent, rather than just doing the bare minimum to keep the cool admin badge. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Commons may be your wiki of focus, but it's not mine... it's mostly useful for crosswiki spam, and I'd rather act directly than tag... -- Mentifisto 18:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment This request was open for two weeks. I think it was enough time to hear opinions of Kanonkas as well as other users, so we should close request and action accordingly. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)