Meta:Requests for adminship/Rschen7754

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

Rschen7754

Rschen7754 (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)
Ending 06:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'm Rschen7754, and I'm interested in becoming an admin on Meta to take care of tasks that require the sysop flag myself such as spam deletion and countervandalism. I have been an admin on the English Wikipedia for 7+ years, and also hold sysop on Wikidata and the English Wikivoyage. As such, I run into a lot of crosswiki abusers, and having sysop here would help me to clean up after them here too. I have over 1,000 edits here and have a passion for crosswiki work. --Rs chen 7754 06:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems to have some use for the tools. Ajraddatz (Talk) 06:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support right experience, certainly trusted, active here QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support trusted and experienced. --Stryn (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose/later, at present I don't see so much Meta-related activity and also not that many of anti-vandalism activities (tagging for deletion etc.). --MF-W 13:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see quite some deleted contributions so I guess you could use the buttons. Trijnstel_talk 16:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously. MBisanz ^talk 16:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cyrfaw (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support while I have some sympathy with MF-W's comment the work I see around suggests this will be ok. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I want to support MF-W here. I think Rschen7754 is awesome and does fantastic work. I just have this mild... we'll call it hat collecting view. He applied for privileges for CU on the same day he applied for privileges here. I have been in the stewards chat, and while Rschen7754 is there, I have not seen many comments on meta related stuff. I do not see the edit history here. If he was more active on meta, then I think a better case would exist. --LauraHale (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - As a regular, I should point out that save for one or two occasions, I haven't seen you in the stewards channel either. This seems like a facile reason to oppose someone over - People are on IRC from their phones, different time zones, different channels - none of this should be taken as a valid concern over someone's level of activity. Actually, a large majority of meta admins aren't even on IRC these days. Theo10011 (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While I respect your opinion, I have never applied for CU, anywhere, on any WMF wiki. --Rs chen 7754 09:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - My bad. I apologize since I was in the wrong. I still have mild concerns about the need for privileges here based on existing work here. It isn't clear why you need the privileges here, because you do so little work here. I could be tempted to change that if I saw a better case for the need for it based either on contributions, or based on an argument admins locally are not capable of doing that here. You just do not appear active enough to warrant it. --LauraHale (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - A lot of my work is deletion taggings (which are only visible to admins), though I do make some vandal reverts, and I did edit Www.wikivoyage.org template/temp earlier this week. With the tools, I would be able to block spammers and vandals as well - since there is no board to report vandals here and I already bug the stewards / Meta admins enough I generally keep quiet and hope that somebody finds it sooner or later. :) --Rs chen 7754 09:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - What amount of deletion tagging have you been doing on meta? :) And where are you bugging local admins to do this? :) Because it looks like you are not doing local work, and the work being done here is adequate so there is no need for another administrator to have you. :) And there isn't much evidence that you are familiar with or active in the local community to deal with community issues. :) --LauraHale (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        CentralAuth says that I have 1080 contributions, and my contributions that I can see as a non-admin do not go past the first page (on all wikis I have 1000 contributions to a page). So I have at least 80. I have requested deletion of a few of my userpages, but that does not amount to more than 10 contributions. I already bug local admins / stewards for global locks/blocks and to edit protected pages (see [1] and User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 1#CU page). I also comment on global permission requests, local permission requests, OTRS permission requests, and global RFCs. I've also created the table at Oversight policy/Local policies. --Rs chen 7754 09:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I get that. It does not particularly help with my argument that you look like a hat collector. I am not understanding WHY you want local privileges. You do not do much vandalism patrolling here. You are very active on other projects. You have not talked much about the community here. I think you an absolutely fantastic contributor on many projects. I think you do exceptional work on other projects. I do not understand why you need extra tools for work here. You have not really addressed that. --LauraHale (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Well to be honest, any elected role on Meta is kind of a hat collector position, to some extent :) But fundamentally, there's not that much more that an admin can do on Meta. I'll admit that I don't have much experience with regex, which would exclude me from the blacklists/abuse filter, but there's not much else that's left. Meta is not a content wiki, and we don't have raging content wars like enwiki or content policies that need enforcing or anything like that. The scope is quite clearly defined, so the "votes for deletion" process isn't expansive either. And when people misbehave, they've usually misbehaved elsewhere so it's not super controversial to deal with this either.
        
        My philosophy when applying for rights has always been 1) do I have something to contribute in this role? or 2) is there a need for more people in this role? This is why I've not run for any bureaucrat position on any Wikimedia site after 8 years of editing, and why I probably never will despite people asking me to (even before the rename right gets removed from the crat tools package). I figure that I idle on IRC a lot, and there's been times across different channels where someone's asked for a Meta admin (actually just last night), and I've either had to bug somebody else or determine that there aren't any around. I've found that having the toolset on multiple wikis that face the same set of abusers has been helpful in dealing with crosswiki abusers (as a sockpuppet investigations clerk on enwiki, and an admin on Wikidata) and I think it would be helpful here as well. --Rs chen 7754 10:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        This shows 179 deleted edits, and that the vast bulk of your edits appear to be in template space for language related things. I do not particularly see a time zone compelling reason, because you are in a USA time zone. I personally do not feel you have much community experience here, that the extent of your edits really suggests a need for local tools, and that the existing admin core is not more than capable of doing advanced work. I am not in anyway saying this to belittle your other work, because I can see the excellent work you do elsewhere and the recognition by the community with that. I have generally had good interactions with you. I just do not see a particular need here. I trust MF-W who has the ability to see deleted edits to evaluate the extent of your 179 deleted edits to judge if they should make a good case. --LauraHale (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: To assist in proper evaluation I would like to ask two questions. Have you considered applying for steward? Gryllida 09:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that a lot of people who have edited as long as I have (8+ years) consider applying at one time or another (even if it is just a fantasy), but I do not feel that I have the experience for the role. --Rs chen 7754 09:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would point out that it is much much harder to be elected as steward. The election are once or perhaps twice an year, and require votes across all projects and languages to be chosen. And even in those cases, standing on Meta is the first thing to consider. It should have no bearing, If he does or does not want to be a steward - They are two separate things. Theo10011 (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What is your timeframe of editing here and what do you usually do at Meta? Thanks. Gryllida 09:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've largely answered parts of that question above, but I do edit at the time of night when there are frequently few stewards / Meta admins around. --Rs chen 7754 09:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Later per MF-W. Furthermore, I do not see for which reason the tools are needed here as vandalism fighting alone does not seem like a sufficient reason for adminship, in my opinion. Do you have any reason which you haven't provided in your nomination statement, yet? Maybe I'll reconsider my vote then. Vogone talk 13:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look in the archives, a lot of candidates pass on countervandalism alone, with even less edits than I have (even throwing out the language templates, I have roughly 800 edits) and much less deleted contributions than I do. But the ability to edit protected pages would be helpful - we went a week without the Greek Wikivoyage being on the wikivoyage.org portal, and I had to flag down another admin to make the changes. --Rs chen 7754 19:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, looking through your contribs I see only 13 vandalism reverts this year. I suppose all the candidates who passed with the countervandalism rationale were more active in this area than you actually are. I'm sorry. Vogone talk 22:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I hate to belabor the point, but most of my countervandalism work is speedy deletion taggings, not reverts. --Rs chen 7754 22:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I asked a meta sysop who told me there isn't that much more page tagging either. :-S Vogone talk 09:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Looking at the candidate's deleted contributions, I'd hazard a guess of around 60 taggings in the last two months of work; a clear majority of the last 100 deleted edits (going back to 23 March of this year) are (identifying by edit summary only) taggings for speedy deletion. Courcelles 08:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re: Www.wikivoyage.org template. If you put {{editprotected}} and you edit the /temp page, you will get a response. We went a week without it, but nobody mentioned it with editprotected or on RFH. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A trusted user with knowledge of both Meta-Wiki and MediaWiki. What more should you ask for from an administrator? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. Legoktm (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: great user, but don't know much of his work here. --Ricordi samoa 17:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rzuwig^► 18:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support No issues at all. Courcelles 04:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support trusted and can be of more help here w/ the tools. He's been helpful and clueful around enwiki and wikidata, as an admin. Aude (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too few edits to the MediaWiki namespace. ;) PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can see MF-W's argument, we have enough active admins to go around. But I don't see any harm in adding someone who just wants to help. I trust the users supporting above, so I'll join them. Good luck Rschen7754! Theo10011 (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Defender (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for sure. Mathonius (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Glaisher (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support sure--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support LlamaAl (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20/3/1 indicates that the majority is willing to grant Rschen7754 the tools, and as such this request is successful. -- Menti fisto 06:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]