Meta:Requests for limited adminship/MJL
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.
- MJL (talk • contribs • deleted user contributions • logs • block log • abuse log • CentralAuth • stalktoy) Bureaucrats: user rights management.
Not ending before 12 November 2020 00:44 (UTC)
We have about 24 open requests for comment right now (27 if you include local RFCs). I would like to be able to help cut this down a bit by closing a few myself. There are plenty which consensus is pretty plain to see or where the RFC was obviously in an invalid format. If selected for the task, I could begin work by going through these pages slowly and carefully in order to ensure a proper closure until only a manageable amount remained left to be discussed.
I have closed several controversial RFCs on English Wikipedia (example). I am also an admin on Scots Wikipedia, so I would already qualify for regular adminship. However, I think a limited adminship run in order to clerk GRFC and WM:RFC for three months would more likely to pass than full adminship.
As a limited admin, I would only use the tools to clerk the aforementioned forums and to enforce the relevant policy as needed. 3 months seems to be a good amount of time to clear out the backlog, so that is what I am going to request these rights for.
Thank you for your time. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Pardon me for opposing, you said you will qualify for regular adminship, I think you meet the sysop on other content wiki criterion, but then we typically look for perm sysop not temp ones for this. In addition, you only have less than 10 deleted contributions, 4 undos for vandalism (here on meta as I check for now). This is sheer too low activity for sysopship and for regular one this will be a strong oppose. We here at meta the access include critical blacklists as well as abuse filters which need candidates to have long committment on meta to show they can be trusted to not break them or not use them if unnecessary. In addition, per Meta:Snowball and RFC policy, there is no commitment whatsoever that RFC need to be close so early, and in fact we typically give some time for everyone to comment as not everyone can see the RFC so promptly. The 27 aren't backlogs, they just need time to pan out and for most, more comments can be helpful or we can give more time to comment. Before the RFC, any users can close RFC, and I don't see you closing any in those period. Sorry I know you are a trusted user but I really cannot support such a request which also claims that we sysops aren't actively closing RFCs causing a backlog which is not absolutely true, I for one had been monitoring the RFCs and trying to close those that can be closed. Sorry I don't see a valid use case here as well as a demonstrated track record, thank you still for volunteering. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- What I can recommend is that you write the closing statement as proposed, and when the RFC participants have consensus to close as such, ask us on RFH to close per the statement. In addition, not all RFC can be closed by meta sysops, some (and most) will require steward action. Hence, I am not comfortable with the scope of this LA. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Camouflaged Mirage: I wasn't planning on closing RFCs early. I was planning on starting with the RFC that has been active since 2013 as stale and going from there. Then I was going to close the two of the three RFCs about Swedish Wikipedia since they were all started by the same user. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- @MJL: The RFC global policy states that RFC with no comments in last 2 years can be counted as inactive. This particular RFC have the last support on 25 June this year, hence, it cannot be closed as stale. This is early closure by definition. We have people complaining about we closing RFC as stale prematurely (one very recent case in fact - if you have been following meta you will know). And for the Swedish ones, we cannot close as it is advocating for admin abuse, those might end up with desysop - steward closure will be proper here although if we want to merge 3 into 1 that is okay too but there is always latitude in meta for people to complain and put each complain separately. It can be better in this way rather than lumping everything to one which is what the hrwp RFC is suffering from. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Camouflaged Mirage: I wasn't planning on closing RFCs early. I was planning on starting with the RFC that has been active since 2013 as stale and going from there. Then I was going to close the two of the three RFCs about Swedish Wikipedia since they were all started by the same user. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- What I can recommend is that you write the closing statement as proposed, and when the RFC participants have consensus to close as such, ask us on RFH to close per the statement. In addition, not all RFC can be closed by meta sysops, some (and most) will require steward action. Hence, I am not comfortable with the scope of this LA. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Camouflaged Mirage said exactly what I would say. So isn't need to write the same things. By your contributions and statistics, I think this request is early even for limited adminship. Thanks for your contributions on different wikis. --Uncitoyentalk 12:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think a LA is appropriate for the use-case of "closing RfC's". — xaosflux Talk 15:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I closing this request as withdrawn. I will take these concerns to heart moving forward. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:53, 10 November 2020 (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.