Meta:Requests for adminship/Base 2
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.
- Base (talk • contribs • deleted user contributions • logs • block log • abuse log • CentralAuth • stalktoy) Bureaucrats: user rights management.
Not ending before 8 October 2024 12:50 (UTC)
Previous nomination: Meta:Requests for adminship/Base
Quite embarrassingly I was just desysopped for inactivity. I indeed seem to have made fewer than 10 edits in the last half a year (though I do have over ten logged actions, not all of which require admin rights though).
I am not sure whether applying for the rights immediately is the best course of action, but looking through the adminship criteria I think I am still satisfying them, with the caveat that I have obviously been not very active in terms of edits lately, but I am still checking my watchlist etc at least a couple of times a week, not to mention being generally involved with the community. I am hoping for this RfA to be perceived as a statement that I am still active too. Ironically it is also just from yesterday that my Internet access situation has somewhat improved, at least for now, being quite limited for the last couple of months.
What I plan to do as an admin is, well, the same as before: mostly just dealing with the problems I stumble across, ranging from obviously misplaced translations to outright vandalism, but also, occasionally and when the mood is right to do some targeted housekeeping, for example a quick run of an old query of mine, quarry:query/22257, tells me that there are a few thousands of empty pages on this wiki, some of those need to be deleted, etc. --Base (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Support as fine by me. The recent activity has not been that high, but given the current situation, it's understandable. Other than that, their previous admin tenure was uncontroversial, and unlike in the de-RfA above this one, I don't see a problem of sustainability or security. With that said, since they have mentioned their intent to increase their activity, I see this as a NOBIGDEAL - if they end up not being able to keep up their promise, the rights can of course be automatically removed for inactivity. EPIC (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)- Why not just use Meta:MSR instead for most of your tasks? Leaderboard (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Leaderboard, MSR does cover a big chunk of the everyday stuff where I might potentially need to use administrative rights on Meta, for example deleting outright vandalism I stumble across would make a valid MSR use case, and even things that do not fall under counter-vandalism work MSR still allows other uncontroversial actions too. But there are also things it does not cover even that I have been doing in the past and I would feel more comfortable being able to do in the future: targeted housekeeping such as in the empty pages example I have provided, occasional conduct warnings, Meta RfCs, patroller rights management, etc. As someone who was a Meta admin before becoming a steward I do not really feel like steward bit covers everything I might want to help with on Meta, although it does cover a lot. --Base (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Base Would it not be better to adjust MSR instead to allow you to do the tasks you need? Leaderboard (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Leaderboard, I mean in theory we can run an RfC for that, which will obviously be more complicated than running an RfA. The advantage is that we can thus allow this for everyone, but that would be a very major shift in MSR, I think the general Meta community consensus at the moment is to keep some things separate and not get taken over the global community which stewards represent in a way although of course a good way to evaluate whether that is so is to run the RfC. And if you mean to have an exception given to just me individually, then it does not make much sense, it is easier to just become a local admin again rather than basically be a quasi-admin through such an exception. --Base (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fine, Support. I do not like the practice of stewards applying for Meta RfA for things like these, but I cannot fault you for it. Leaderboard (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fine,
- @Leaderboard, I mean in theory we can run an RfC for that, which will obviously be more complicated than running an RfA. The advantage is that we can thus allow this for everyone, but that would be a very major shift in MSR, I think the general Meta community consensus at the moment is to keep some things separate and not get taken over the global community which stewards represent in a way although of course a good way to evaluate whether that is so is to run the RfC. And if you mean to have an exception given to just me individually, then it does not make much sense, it is easier to just become a local admin again rather than basically be a quasi-admin through such an exception. --Base (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Base Would it not be better to adjust MSR instead to allow you to do the tasks you need? Leaderboard (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Leaderboard, MSR does cover a big chunk of the everyday stuff where I might potentially need to use administrative rights on Meta, for example deleting outright vandalism I stumble across would make a valid MSR use case, and even things that do not fall under counter-vandalism work MSR still allows other uncontroversial actions too. But there are also things it does not cover even that I have been doing in the past and I would feel more comfortable being able to do in the future: targeted housekeeping such as in the empty pages example I have provided, occasional conduct warnings, Meta RfCs, patroller rights management, etc. As someone who was a Meta admin before becoming a steward I do not really feel like steward bit covers everything I might want to help with on Meta, although it does cover a lot. --Base (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Trusted user. --Stïnger
16:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC). - Support --Tmv (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support on the basis of trust. --SHB2000 (t • c) 01:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Trusted. Queen of Hearts (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Wüstenspringmaus talk 08:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support sure. Ternera (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support XXBlackburnXx (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --M/ (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --V0lkanic (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Jianhui67 talk★contribs 18:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --TenWhile6 18:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ferien (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support –MrBenjo (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Done successful. — xaosflux Talk 13:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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.