Meta:Requests for adminship/Turkmen 2
Turkmen edit
- Turkmen (talk • contribs • deleted user contributions • logs • block log • abuse log • CentralAuth • stalktoy) Bureaucrats: user rights management.
Ending 1 April 2020 09:48 (UTC)
First nomination: Meta:Requests for adminship/Turkmen
Hello! This is my second nomination. I yet again stand with the reasons I gave for my nomination in my previous nomination. I need the sysop righrs to make more effective contributions. I usually make translations, revert vandalism, and insert "Delete" template for the spam and inappropriate content on MetaWiki. I warn the users who break the rules.
I can make more contributions in shorter amount of time if I the sysop tools. For example, making something about users and IPs who carry out edit wars and remove "Delete" templates without consensus. Because am a global sysop and global renamer, I'm usually active on SRG, SRM and SRUC. I have gathered sysop experience on local wiki (Azerbaijani Wikipedia) for the last couple years. I'd like to thank you for your attention!--Turkmen talk 09:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment Can you explain why you rollback this and then warned them that they are vandalizing?. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- I took his change back because the user removed the title on the page. And I warned him not to do it again. --Turkmen talk 11:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- That user isn't vandalising, it's a newbie coming to meta asking for GIPBE. What you could had done is what Trijnstel did the next edit. It's clearly not vandalism and no warning is needed IMO.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Even if he was a novice, he still did it wrong. Please, pay attention to the last message I wrote to the user. I wrote that you could write to me to help him. User damaged the Meta page. I thought I could tell him some things. --Turkmen talk 14:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Let's assume more good faith here to newbies, shall we? The warning is a little too harsh, that a test3 where a test1 can do. In meta, many users are new and hence, they are prone to make mistakes here / there. I rather talk to them then give such a strong vandalism template in which a block is being threatened. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with Camouflaged Mirage, that was not vandalism, he did that by mistake when trying to add that request.--AldnonymousBicara? 14:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. It would be more accurate if I used "{{Test1}}". I wanted to help him by alerting the user. You can look at my last message.--Turkmen talk 17:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with Camouflaged Mirage, that was not vandalism, he did that by mistake when trying to add that request.--AldnonymousBicara? 14:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Let's assume more good faith here to newbies, shall we? The warning is a little too harsh, that a test3 where a test1 can do. In meta, many users are new and hence, they are prone to make mistakes here / there. I rather talk to them then give such a strong vandalism template in which a block is being threatened. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- Even if he was a novice, he still did it wrong. Please, pay attention to the last message I wrote to the user. I wrote that you could write to me to help him. User damaged the Meta page. I thought I could tell him some things. --Turkmen talk 14:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- That user isn't vandalising, it's a newbie coming to meta asking for GIPBE. What you could had done is what Trijnstel did the next edit. It's clearly not vandalism and no warning is needed IMO.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- I took his change back because the user removed the title on the page. And I warned him not to do it again. --Turkmen talk 11:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
OpposeThe second message does not change anything. Apparently no insight for your Error. Sorry but the mentioned rollback and warning were wrong. Administrators should fix errors from other users and not reset posts for no reason.--𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 18:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Neutral. Regretful again. I find the above mentioned incident a little concerning and the candidate seems to not know why how that reverting and warning could be problematic. I also find the 3 months interval way too short for a 2nd RFA. With this, the reason why I am not opposing as I handled quite a fair bit of their speedy which all are correctly tagged and I see fair amount of good reverts, as well as block requests. We aren't correct all the time, and I admit I have my fair bit of screw ups, however, that incident is so recent that I can't overlook. Thanks for volunteering again.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)- Neutral Similar reason per Camouflaged Mirage, I am a bit concerned about how you treat newbies this way. I'd rather not template them as warning, just fix their request will do. And even if you want to undo their edit, don't use rollback but use undo and add summary why their edit is a mistake.--AldnonymousBicara? 20:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Strong support I see no reason why I should be against it. Active and trusted user. Kindly, --Mehman 97 23:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)- Strong support CT301 talkcontributions 18:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Highly inappropriate use of rollback on non-vandalism. I'm not confident the user understands the difference between good faith edits and vandalism. -FASTILY 19:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Hello dear @MF-Warburg: Can you please stop this vote? Thank you!--Turkmen talk 21:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Withdrawn. Matiia (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)