Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta:Requests for adminship/GeneralNotability

< Meta:Requests for adminship

GeneralNotability

edit

Not ending before 26 February 2021 22:48 (UTC)

Hello folks, I'm a little early (my limited adminship term expires in about a month), but I'm requesting that my limited adminship be upgraded to full adminship. I was granted limited adminship in September for a term of six months, limited to abusefilters and the global spam blacklist. I believe I performed well in that role, helping with some global filters and working on COIBot's xwiki spam reports, though real-life issues prevented me from being quite as active as I had originally hoped to be. I intend to continue with the same work a full admin, only using the other parts of the toolkit for one-off small tasks (for example, blocking the occasional vandal). I believe my performance as a limited admin here for the past half year and a full admin for most of a year on enwiki demonstrates that I can be trusted with the entire admin toolkit. You can find my previous RfA at Meta:Requests_for_limited_adminship/GeneralNotability. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Support Of course. Relevant experience, trust, etc. Thank you for volunteering, Vermont (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Less than 500 edits on Meta and there seems little need for the tools based on past activity. Only 3 requests for deletion for example. More activity on here would be good - I'd probably suggest an extension to the temporary rights though. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Looks fine to me. Despite the fact that most of his work is concentrated on abusefilters, he's done well in his limited adminship, and I do not see a need to hamstring his rights in case he needs to do something else that a Meta admin can do. After all, being a full admin does not mean that he cannot do what he's already doing. Not every Meta admin needs to spend their time on antivandalism. Leaderboard (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Herbythyme, I'd also encourage you to continue the limited adminship. --MF-W 14:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral I do not think that you will misuse the tools, but I would prefer indefinite limited adminship in this case. --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support full adminship or an extension of existing rights. Clear use for the tools with the spamblacklist, and can be trusted with access to the other parts of the toolkit. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral It is clear that GeneralNotability does good job as a limited admin. Also an active admin on English Wikipedia. But I am concerned because I haven't seen many Meta contributions (deletion requests, protection requests, block requests, etc.) and total number of contributions for regular adminship. Instead, I can give full support for limited adminship. --Uncitoyentalk 18:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support GeneralNotability was one of the first editors I interacted a lot with after becoming more active. I found (and find) them to be super helpful. GN has a great temperament, is rational, and of high competence. I have no concerns trusting them with meta adminship, and am sure they will use it well and be a net plus (to put it lightly). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will say, the usual most dangerous parts of the meta admin toolkit are the global blacklist and filters, which are critical areas of the toolkit. This is why we usually want candidates with active meta participation in determing can they be trusted not to break these. The delete / block / protect tools aren't that high risk. This is an unique situation, the candidate had done 5 months as a Limited Admin in meta doing work on these higher risk areas, without any major concerns. Hence, I think they passes the probationary period. I understand the opposers are saying little use of the toolkit beyond what they already have access to, which is also true. What I see is a competent candidate, trusted on a large wiki, with competent use of the tools in these narrow areas. The vandalism here and page protection standards here aren't that different from en if I am not wrong, so I don't think they will use the tools recklessly. The edit count, mw-undo/rollback, deletion taggings aren't that impressive, and the edit count last check is 498. I think these are quite low to be honest. Overall, I know there are reservations and I for one will not want this to set the wrong precedence that such low participation with a niche area to gain access to this toolkit. However, if we think a step ahead, if they will ask for extension of Limited Adminship to indefinite, I am sure that it will be widely supported. Since they already have access to the high risk areas of adminship, having an additional hand on the lower risk areas cannot hurt. I will thus, cautiously   Support for full adminship with a hope they will help in other areas and together, if the consensus is heading that way, an extension of Limited Adminship to indefinite. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support I have nothing but positive experiences with this user and given their work here and their (almost) a year of +sysop on en.wp where they are very active. For this particular user, I don't personally see a discernible difference between extending to indefinite limited adminship and just giving them a full RfA. They are certainly trustworthy and there is not a valid reason to restrict them from helping out in other areas when needed when they've already proven themselves in the limited role and with full adminiship on en. --Charitwo (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support per a lot of people. I think there's a lot more I could say here about them, but Mirage sums it up quite nicely—the global blacklist and filters are one of the higher risk areas that adminship grants, and they have clearly demonstrated they can be trusted not to break everything with their temporary limited adminship. Point is: I fully trust them with the tools that full adminship grants. Perryprog (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose per Herby. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support per Ajraddatz. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support As I said before, no concerns. ミラP@Miraclepine 21:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support per Perry. Majavah (talk!) 18:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support --mirinano (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose activity too low for full adminship IMO. --IWI (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13 supports, 4 opposes, 2 neutral -> 76%. Granted. Matiia (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship/GeneralNotability&oldid=21160064"