Meta:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth4

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

lustiger_seth Edit

Ending 18 October 2016 20:35 UTC

gudn tach! (Hi!)
Same procedure as 2014 (RFA III.):
I'm admin at w:de and (partly) admin at w:en. I've been admin here at meta since 2008 (first a temp admin, after that a regular one, see RFA I. and RFA II.).
Because of rules I didn't make, I got my rights removed for not editing enough per time.
In fact, I won't be here often in future, maybe just a few times per year. However, the major time here at meta I spent and will spend at the spam-blacklist pages. My edits, although they occur seldom, were helpful to the projects, and I'd would like to continue with that work, so it would be great to be admin here again. :-) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lustiger seth (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose After now already 3 removals, it is pretty obvious the admin rights in their usual scope are not needed and do not fit here. I remain at the position I had in 2014 and would either suggest to grant an exception like it was done for Dschwen (single-purpose limited adminship) or not to grant this permission at all. The occasional 6-7 edits to the spam blacklist per year can surely be done by one of the dozens regular meta admins as well. --Vogone (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I guess, this is the second removal (and not the third), @Vogone. However, edits like this one can't be done easily by anybody. Of course, I can paste the stuff in my user name space and ask Dirk Beetstra or billinghurst to copy and paste all the stuff. But actually this would generate more work and I would really dislike it if obstacles were put in the way of those who just want (and are able) to help. I don't understand your objection. If I made a lot of mistakes, then I would understand. If I would offend anybody, then I would understand. But I really don't understand, why it should be a problem to anybody if I edit rarely. -- seth (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please read my comment for a second time and you will see I do not oppose your work. I oppose full adminship for a clearly limited task which causes these repeated permission requests every few years. --Vogone (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If the alternates exists then we can offer those, but they don't exist. With regard to the removals, maybe we need to look at our removal policy and more align it with the global policy, and realise that in the mature developed meta, that our rules based on 8-10 year ago are now in need of review. Many admins pick up specialty roles, and there is quite a limited set of admins managing the global blacklist, and Seth does take a crosswiki approach to spam management. The skills, tools and approach that he brings are exactly what are needed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is not true, we have such an exception in place for Dschwen. --Vogone (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Comment Hi, I think we could create a local group with editprotected and autopatrolled rights for cases like this, I mean users who only need admin rights to edit the spam blacklist or another protected page, I'm also thinking on MER-C. By the other way if Lustiger seth wants to recover the admin rights I have no objections.--Syum90 (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please don't. We don't need more fancy usergroups. We trust our admins and temporary admins to stick to the policies and the scope for which they were elected. Thank you. —MarcoAurelio 13:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with MA, and would prefer to use the groups we have instead of creating more. – Ajraddatz (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Vogone. The spam blacklist has been edited only a few time, imho not enough to re-grant the sysop flag again.--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Comment I'd support this as a temporary adminship with a an indefinite expiration (temporary related to the only topic they are concerned with) (indefinite, subject to normal activity requirements). — xaosflux Talk 19:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Seth has clearly demonstrated that they can utilise the tools successfully and without any concern of misuse.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support Some of us are just not as active as others, Lustiger Seth is a welcome addition to a corner of Wikipedia that is hardly edited, and where we should try our best to keep all capable hands. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 03:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I know it is procedure, but I do think that the removal should not be automatic without consulting the editor - as long as they still hold administrator rights on other wikis, and they have not done anything wrong, I strongly oppose totally automatic removal (as was applied here). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just for clarify, my vote is a Support Support.--Syum90 (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I like Xaosflux's idea. I was concerned last time with the inactivity process getting them, and I maintain that concern. So the obvious solution is to let lustiger seth continue to edit the blacklist as needed, and indef temp adminship might accomplish that. As a side note, it's a bloody website on the internet... why can we not allow for a bit more common sense in situations like this? What a waste of volunteer time. Please note that I'm not directing this comment at anyone in particular, more just general frustration with stuff like this. – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    More of a general reply but I think we can use Meta talk:Administrators/Removal and Meta:Babel to discuss in which aspects we don't like the current policy and attempt to fix it. There has been some comments over the years, but no serious attempt to amend the policy has ever happened, so obviously we continue to apply it the way it was approved. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 09:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Xaosflux and Ajraddatz (Support Support only for indefinite limited adminship). Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You wish to support full adminship in case limited adminship is not going to be approved? Or how can we interpret the "support" in the brackets? --Vogone (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Made my support more obvious. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 11:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Done Adminship granted subject to the conditions (as amended) set in the talk page: only for spamblacklist management and yearly confirmation of still being interested in keeping the tools.

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.