Meta:Requests for adminship/Aldnonymous (2)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Aldnonymous edit

Aldnonymous (talk • contribs • deleted user contributions • logs • block log • abuse log • CentralAuth • stalktoy) Bureaucrats: user rights management.

Ending 1 April 2019 07:21 (UTC)

Hello again everyone, today I'm volunteering for Meta Adminship (again), to help with vandalism and spam that other people don't know the language of, I also have interest to help with Spam blacklist and processing queue from Talk:Spam blacklist, because I often found spam crosswiki that can't be stopped by local block, global block and local blacklisting (as I usually patrolling small wikis as one of the Global Sysop). I will try my best using my language skill to identify vandalism and spam from other language and also try to help with Title blacklist. Currently I often patrol meta and often can't found other meta admin available during my time online (Indonesia daylight time), I can offer my service in this as a plus for timezone coverage. As an addendum I previously serve as one of Meta-Admin and I think I have the experience for the role :

My previous Request for Adminship can be found here : Meta:Requests for adminship/Aldnonymous

Thank you for reading this request.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 07:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Active, helpful and experienced.--BRP^ever 07:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 07:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, Yes. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 08:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 09:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Why not?--Cohaf (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vermont (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support trusted user. Is a fine global sysop. --Eleanor De Cruzem (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support welcome back. xaosflux ^Talk 12:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Ammarpad (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely --Hoo man (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good. Hiàn (talk)/_{editing on mobile account} 13:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alaa :)..! 20:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You've barely been back, so I would like to see more activity before you jump right in. Being a sysop on this project four years ago holds little weight in my eyes. Nihlus 22:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At risk of this being seen as tit-for-tat because of mine, but I actually agree with Nihlus: you've been gone for years, and while I never met you before, every interaction I have had with you both here and on IRC has been overwhelmingly negative: you focus almost entirely on politics and not on actually supporting projects and promoting interaction between Wikimedians. You effectively called me a racist just a few days ago, and I don't consider that acceptable conduct in cross-wiki work. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In part, per TonyBallioni. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 23:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aldnonymous has served very well here on meta in the past and is active again. However, I will note that I followed the discussion TonyBallioni linked to above and as well deemed some of the replies rather disconcerting. I hope this is not going to repeat. --Vogone (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Vituzzu (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I largely agree with Vogone. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A general comment on inactivity and regaining adminship on Meta: Meta has always had a relatively strict activity requirement for admins, but that requirement has been balanced out by a community that was generally willing to take people back when they returned. If the community is going to become more strict with letting old admins back, then I would want to lighten our activity requirements as a result. My personal view is that if a person was trusted in the past, so long as they've demonstrated that they are still able to do the core duties then they should be allowed to return. If they go inactive again, then they will be removed again. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Aldnon is experienced and trustworthy. I'm not too concerned by the gap in activity; he served well before, so why think that would change now? His account hasn't been compromised, and while he may want to catch up with some of the minor changes to policies (and new policies) from the last few years, that's hardly a dealbreaker in my opinion. Lastly I would add that, while Vogone's caveat is valid, all of my interactions with him on-wiki and IRC that I remember have been quite positive. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Defender (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Veracious (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joseagush (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Minimaxima|^talk 17:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --I don't see a demonstrated need for the tools and I also am very uncomfortable with comments that have been made recently about other editors and it's not the first of it's kind in the interactions I've come across on-wiki and on IRC. Praxidicae (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good to work with if you agree with his viewpoint, but can get rude when you disagree. This is enough of a problem on Meta and I don't want to further this. I remember being disappointed in this behavior even before his long inactivity, but another example where the candidate was condescending was here: [1] --Rs chen 7754 18:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I figured out where that disappointment came from. There were several examples of poor behavior noted at d:Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Aldnonymous. Sure, those examples were from back in 2015, but it shows a long-term pattern, especially when combined with the recent examples and the complete inactivity in the intervening period. Though, I still find this insensitive commentary about rape quite disturbing, especially as these were comments made on Meta and while the candidate was a Meta admin. --Rs chen 7754 00:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry Rschen7754, but, that was from 4 years ago, if I offend you with that comment I am truly sorry, I am truly confused at that time, what I'm confused is, I don't even know what Wikipedia/meta can do with that grants, why would that big amount of money be used for something ambiguous? $20.000 to be used for article creation is overkill in my opinion. Thank you.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 02:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that was the only comment, I could look past that. But you made several inflammatory comments back then, and are starting to make them again today (per TonyBallioni). So this is still relevant. --Rs chen 7754 02:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marwan Mohamad (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Active and Dedicated — Sandeep Raut (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the concerns raised by Rschen7754. Ordinarily, I wouldn't want to judge someone based on their actions years ago, but because of his inactivity for the past several years, there's no way to tell whether his behavior has changed. Natureium (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ę-oиė >>> ™ 03:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rschen7754 and TonyBallioni. Bradv🍁 03:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AGK ■ 09:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rschan7754 and TonyBallioni. Diplomacy and treating others with respect is a requirement for the job. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arifin.wijaya (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bonaditya (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mimihitam (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I took a look at the alleged condensing remarks. I don't quite agree with Rschen7754's examples, particularly the more recent ones, to me he was just trying to state his point. As for TonyBallioni's case, I would say that you indeed went just a bit too far. Keeping that in mind, I don't see anything else against him (her), so it's a support from my side. That being said, please do be more careful in the future. Leaderboard (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Despite other issues raised, I do not see any reason to oppose this user. Good luck! ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 14:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The request succeeds. --MF-W 07:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above request page is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Comments about this page should be made in Meta:Babel or Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.