Meta:Requests for adminship/TBloemink

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

TBloemink edit

TBloemink (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Ending 29 May 2014 12:54 UTC

Even though I am a steward, I don't feel this comfortable deleting vandalism and stuff on wiki's with this many admins (yes, even though that is allowed per the steward-meta relation). Therefore, I'd like to apply for the theoretical adminship on meta (in practice, I do have these tools already).

For those who do not know me, my name is TBloemink, started working on Wikipedia in 2010 and became an admin on the Dutch Wikipedia in November 2011. I am a steward on Wikimedia since 28 February 2014. I have been an administrator on mediawikiwiki and wikidata, but currently do not serve that role.

I do agree with you that my activity levels have been really volatile: this has everything to do with school and now my internship, even though I am available most time of the day.

Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, — TBloemink _talk 12:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine! --M/ (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 15:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you not feel comfortable deleting vandalism here while it is allowed by policy? 12 speedy deletion taggings here (only 2 tags this year). --Glaisher [talk] 16:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Glaisher, unless a rationale outside of the MSR scope is provided. Why is the MSR in place even if stewards feel "uncomfortable" following it? Vogone (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is because I think it is real important that stewards don't perform actions on wiki's with active administrators. I also am refraining from performing actions on wikidata because of the same reason even though they say it's allowed. It really is for my own rest and if this does not pass, so be it. But I kind of hate asking others to do stuff for me. — TBloemink _talk 19:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the difference between meta and other projects is that you indeed have local rights here. You are even assigned to a local group, the steward group. These are the same rights just under a different "label" and under a different scope. If you hate asking others to do stuff for you, then just do it yourself. You were entrusted with these rights by both the global and the local community, at least for the time of your service as a steward. Regarding Wikidata, you are technically still a local sysop there as the 6 months after your resignment didn't pass yet. You can ask me to restore your local rights at any time if you should come into a situation where you don't want to ask others to do stuff for you there again. Regards, Vogone (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was referring to this revision (the comment was slightly modified by TBloemink while I was writing mine as it seems). Vogone (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am also quite close to returning to WD. As for meta, my barrier of "uncontroversial" actions is quite different than which is said on the SMR. Thank you for your comment, I'll try to change my feeling about it — TBloemink _talk 20:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, TBloemink has avoided actions under the MSR (which I see as being fine), so I have no problems with granting local adminship if that would be better. If he is inactive with it it will be removed by local processes, so I don't see the harm. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajraddatz: No, he hasn't avoided them. See the last part of Glaisher's comment for reference. Vogone (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With that I mean his non-existent activity in spam page tagging on this project, in case it was unclear (2 speedy deletion requests in the last 2 years, means at maximum 2 "avoided" actions). Vogone (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I would completely trust TBloemink with local adminship on Meta (since he already has the rights), I would like to see a response to Glaisher and Vogone. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem, so I support. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I see no real issue so support. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not wanting to use the permissions of WM:MSR is not a valid reason for requesting adminship. My opinion is entirely based on the local activity, which I consider to be not sufficient (as mentioned by Glaisher). --MF-W 21:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no problems supporting a steward for local adminship as they will not abuse the tool. If they are not that active, then when their term expires our processes will manage such a situation. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support steward, duh. Theo10011 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Stewards can be trusted with the role of administrator here, as they are trusted with everything else. - Snaj dowski 00:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should be okay. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 12:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose. WM:MSR is intended to avoid autopromoting stewards to local adminship, to keep stewards and local admins with their own responsibilities. Promoting a user solely because this user is a steward would mean this guideline is worthless. I only consider local adminship to be necessary for a steward when the steward is either active on meta or regularly requires the flag for actions outside of the MSR scope. Sa vh ^ñ 12:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly is a difficult one. We are at 9 supports versus 3 opposes, which makes a rational of about 75%. WM:A says that candidates should be approved by at least 75% of the participants. Looking at it, it seems that the opposers would like stewards to act based on MSR. I can understand that some stewards may feel uncomfortable acting under this policy because as they hit something little more controversial than it looks like in the first moment, they get yelled at. I think the advantages to grant the rights here outweigh the disadvantages, especially since the opposes are not based on trustworthiness and stuff. TBloemink has the minimal needed support for a successful request and so I close this as successful. -Barras talk 14:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this closure is in line with the policy which requires approval "by at least 75% of participants". I see 13 participants here of whom merely 9 supported this RFA, which makes a support ratio of less than 75%. Regards, Vogone (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]