Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta:Requests for adminship

(Redirected from Meta:Requests for temporary adminship)
Shortcut:
WM:RFA
This page hosts requests for administrator access on the Meta-Wiki; for requesting administrator access on any other wiki, please find the appropriate venue on the index of request and proposal pages. Bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight and bot requests are also made here. Before making a request here, please see the administrator policy.

Most requests should be listed here for at least seven days; bureaucrats should only close after the minimum time foreseen in the relevant policy. Discussions are not closed early. Adminship will be granted by a support ratio of at least 75%. If a request hasn't been addressed by a bureaucrat after a lengthy period of time, please leave a note at Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. Requests may be extended, or put on hold by bureaucrats, pending decision or finding of consensus.

Requests for temporary adminship and bot requests may be less formal and often go for a shorter duration if consensus becomes clear after only a few days of discussion.

All editors with an account on Meta, at least one active account on any Wikimedia project, and a link between the two, may participate in any request and give their opinion of the candidate. However, more active Meta editors' opinions may be given additional weight in controversial cases.

See below for information on prerequisites on submitting a request, and how to add a nomination.

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Participate:

This box: view · talk · edit

Information

Note that this page is for access on Meta only. See the permission request to stewards page for adminship/deadminship requests on other projects.

Regular adminship

  1. Before requesting admin access, please check the policy for requesting adminship.
  2. Use the box below, insert your username:

  3. Place a request on this page, by transcluding the subpage, for example {{Meta:Requests for adminship/Username}}. Please put the newest request on the top. Bear in mind that even if you do meet the criteria above this does not mean that the community will automatically approve a request.
  4. Please note, past administrators who have given up their rights must meet all criteria at the time of the new request. There is no separate process for reinstating past administrators.

Please note: Ill-considered nominations for adminship can be draining and deflating to both the community and the candidate. Any successful candidate will need to be able to demonstrate sufficient experience within the Wikimedia community, in addition to a familiarity with Meta-Wiki. If a candidate is not already a local administrator or holder of advanced permissions on a Wikimedia content project, they are less likely to pass a request for adminship here at Meta-Wiki.

Bureaucratship

Add your request below under the bureaucratship section. Please note:

  • Only active administrators can become bureaucrats, and only after at least 6 months of regular adminship.
  • User is endorsed by two current bureaucrats after they nominate themselves here.

If you fail any of these requirements, you will not be assigned the bureaucrat flag. For more information see the Meta bureaucrat page.

Other access

For these types of access, create a subpage just as you would for regular adminship and add it to the appropriate section of this page.


  • Limited adminship: If you need sysop access for a particular reason (such as ability to edit protected pages), you may request limited adminship on Meta. If granted, the user understands that they will only be allowed to use the tools for the tasks they were approved, and not doing so will be grounds for immediate removal. Temporary sysop access will normally be valid for one month unless requested and granted otherwise.


  • CheckUser: please read the CheckUser policy and add your request below under the checkuser section, in the same way as an admin request.

  • Oversight: please read the Oversight policy and add your request below under the oversight section, in the same way as an admin request.



For these types of access, just ask on Meta request for help from a sysop or bureaucrat page:

Requests for global renamer permissions are handled at global permission requests to stewards page.

WMF Office Staff and Contractors

  • If you are an WMF Official or Contractor and need rights on Meta-Wiki to perform your duties the process is different. Please have a look at the WMF staff userrights policy on Office wiki[restricted access] and follow the procedure described there. If in doubt, please contact Trust and Safety; or send an email to ca wikimedia org.(source)

Requests for regular adminship

Lofty abyss (removal)

Not ending before 7 October 2024 23:22 (UTC)

I would like to propose to remove the sysop rights of Lofty abyss here at Meta-Wiki.

The inactivity policy here at Meta mandates an automatic removal for admins with fewer than 10 edits in six months and a proposed removal for admins with fewer than 10 logged admin actions in six months. As can be seen in the logs and past inactivity removals, Lofty abyss has been "active enough" per policy; however, their way of doing so has been bypassing the inactivity policy by returning roughly a week before activity reviews (i.e. the end of March and September) to perform the minimum required edits and actions to keep their adminship, to then return to being absent for the following six months, and repeated. As seen in the previously linked logs as well as the contributions, this has been going on here since September 2021, i.e a little over three years, but has also been continuing since many years on other wikis where they hold advanced rights. This was something that also led to a de-sysop on simplewiki (see for reference simple:Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Lofty abyss, some parts of the statement used in that discussion I will point to here for some more context), as well as to several other failed right applications [1][2][3][4][5], and in other words, this has been a long ongoing technique of doing the minimum per policy to bypass inactivity removal. To partly quote Ferien's statement in the aforementioned de-sysop vote, "I don't think anyone would particularly care if this was a one-time occurrence. However, this appears to be a pattern, doing the bare minimum just to keep the admin hat, and this has gone on for 9-10 years."

With that said, given that it has been apparent that they are only active to keep their rights here and that their gaming of the inactivity policy has now been going on for years, not just here but also on other wikis where they hold advanced rights, I see no indication of Lofty abyss planning to become an active community member in the near future. That is a risk, both security-wise and to the community, and when the inactivity policy can't do anything about that, a de-RfA can, which is why I am proposing to remove Lofty's adminship here. On a second note, I'd like to note that this removal discussion should be valid, as in previous cases. EPIC (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Remove per nom, though with thanks for their service and with no objections to them having their adminship back should they return to activity in the future. EPIC (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to security, not sure where that comes from, unless you have some other evidence that I could be compromised I have quite a complex password, and all, and I'm not sure what that has got to do with the rest, which, I admit, isn't a good look, and I really should have done this before (I keep procrastinating, as when I last tried it a decade ago it took some time), but I was hoping to have this feed, to complement what I used to do over there (before freenode was strangely taken over, and whatnot), which would facilitate all of this (including meta rc) even more; so, really, my fault for procrastinating, but I shall soon try to have this bot on toolforge (I think the problem was that there was a server switch, from ts), combine all this, and be more consistently active, as I was some time ago (if only all these server changes didn't constantly occur)... --~Lofty abyss 23:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove I also would be willing to support them and give them a second chance down the road if they become active and show a genuine need for the user right. For now though, the history of hat collecting worries me and I'm not really convinced by Lofty's statement above, which reads as "shifting of blame" to me instead of addressing the issue that this desysop request brings up. Ternera (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much blame myself for procrastinating, not shifting any of that, but the freenode to libera migration was disruptive, and... I am finally looking into toolforge, but I keep running into some gitlab error, so if anyone can help with that (or has an rc bot that can be configured on irc, not sure why cvn's are so static)... --~Lofty abyss 00:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you have been told in the enwiki discussion you linked already that wm-bot exists for that purpose? ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     15:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove Virtually inactive for an admin. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     00:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove unfortunately Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove per above, unfortunately inactive. AramilFeraxa (Talk) 05:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove thanks for your service --TenWhile6 05:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove Syunsyunminmin 🗨️talk 08:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no choice but to support this removal request, and a key reason is that your responses are frustratingly deceptive at best. "freenode to libera migration was disruptive" - that happened years ago, and this is Meta adminship, not an IRC admin role. And even if you're working on IRC, why do you need Meta adminship for that? You've hinted that you will be "more consistently active", and you haven't been for years, have you? You can always reapply if you later need the role. I don't see this as a security issue though, that being said. Leaderboard (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove As per nominator. Lofty abyss has been inactive for several years already, and doing the minimum amount of actions to retain the rights is a no-go. --Stïnger    11:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  •   Remove per nom and Leaderboard, unfortunately. I think it is better to give up the role than to do a minimum number of actions to retain the tools if one does not really require them. That said, Lofty abyss is free to reapply for the rights should they regain activity in the future. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 16:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove I completely understand being busy in real life, but continuing to do token actions solely to meet the minimum requirements for your admin role is not acceptable. After a near-unanimous RfdA on simplewiki, with the conditional oppose not being addressed at all, someone would typically use that as a point to reconsider their current approach to advanced user rights. Considering the simplewiki RfdA was almost 3 years ago (and the failed steward confirm was almost 6 years ago) and this identical behaviour is still continuing, this RfdA is not particularly surprising, and I think your wikilawyering to dodge this point, both onwiki and off, has also shown a lack of maturity for any advanced user rights to the extent that is a reason for removing the rights in itself. --Ferien (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, I am confused how IRC keeps coming up in these conversations relating to a lack of activity. IRC is not required to actively contribute, even in the field of anti-vandalism and similar administrative work, but you have been inactive before then and the move happened over 3 years ago. --Ferien (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Base

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 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 to, 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 empty pages on this wiki, some of those need to be deleted, etc. --Base (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •   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)[reply]
  • Why not just use Meta:MSR instead for most of your tasks? Leaderboard (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  •   Support Trusted user. --Stïnger    16:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  •   Support --Tmv (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for limited adminship

None currently

Requests for interface adminship

None currently

Requests for bureaucratship

None currently

Requests for CheckUser access

"Meta:Requests for checkuser" redirects here. To request checkuser information, see Meta:Requests for CheckUser information.
None currently

Requests for Oversight access

"Meta:Requests for oversight" redirects here. To request oversighting, see Meta:Oversighters#Requests.
None currently

Requests for translation adminship

None currently

Requests for CentralNotice adminship

None currently

Requests for bot flags

None currently

See also

Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=27539715#Requests_for_limited_adminship"