Previous request - withdrawn while passing with a day left, in response to a comment of mine offending a member of the community at the time.
Hello meta community,
I've been a steward for a little over a month now, and have been using the steward tools on meta per the meta-steward relationship. My actions have remained within the scope of that policy, but some users have expressed to me that they would be more comfortable with me performing these actions as a local administrator instead of as a steward. After checking today, I realized that I am very active on meta, and as such it would probably be better for me to be performing these actions as a local admin instead of as a steward.
The scope of my activity as an admin will mostly include what I've been doing so far; editing the spam and title blacklists, deleting pages and blocking vandals as required.
In terms of experience, I'm also an administrator on Wikidata. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Support ok. --Rschen7754 02:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Support Let me state this clearly: Ajraddatz is one of the nicest and most helpful people I've had the pleasure to cooperate with on Wikimedia. For a long time (by Wikimedia standards, at least), he has been very active with cross-wiki and Meta work (although since he became active on Wikidata, that has been part of his focus as well). He has been very active as a global sysop for years, and now that the community has entrusted him with stewardship he is even more productive. I have no doubts that he will make a great admin, and think he should be one already. Since he became a steward, he has performed 90 deletions and 56 blocks here. It would be beneficial to Meta-Wiki to make him an admin so he doesn't have to worry about WM:MSR. Someone will probably eventually bring this up, so it might as well be me: the reason he withdrew his previous request for adminship was that he was not an administrator on a "content project" (and there was some debate over whether MediaWiki.org, where he held local adminship, was a content project). Following Vogone's (also withdrawn) RfA, that requirement was removed from the policy. Wikidata would be counted as a content project anyway, at least in my opinion. My RfA was the first one under the new policy, and was successful even though I was not a local admin anywhere (but was a GS, like ajr). PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Question: I wonder if you can avoid premature inferences from IRC discussions, such as a time when you accused Rschen and I of harassment in a Wikidata admin noticeboard discussion, or your wrong assumption at MZMcBride's RfB here, in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I never intentionally accused anyone of harassment, but was rather playing the devil's advocate in that case, and changed my comment when that interpretation was pointed out to me. I do on rare occasion make an uninformed comment after forgetting certain sequences of events. I think I've made two such comments this year - the one on the recent RfB and thinking that Kaldari was Kalki on enwiki. They are very rare but none-the-less incredibly annoying to myself, and I can assure you that I will do my best to not make any more in the future. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Support. I totally agree with PiRSquared. LlamaAl (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Support and I am still of the opinion that all stewards should be granted this right for the term of their stewardship, and should only need to go through this process if they want the right independent of their stewardship. — billinghurstsDrewth 09:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Support – Per PiRSquared17. Ajraddatz should've became a sysop for Meta years ago. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Finally a request that one can support before it is withdrawn! I want to note however that it undermines the whole point of the MSR if users "feel more comfortable" if people don't make use of its provisions... ---MF-W 13:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
For sure. I agree with Billinghurst. Mathonius (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
What Billinghurst said is already the case, see Meta:MSR. Vogonetalk 07:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Vogone. I see things a bit differently, because that page states that "Stewards should avoid the use of those tools for regular local Meta-Wiki tasks unless the task is an emergency or uncontroversial." (i.e., local admins can do more than stewards), and besides that, judging by Ajr's statement ("My actions have remained within the scope of that policy, but some users have expressed to me that they would be more comfortable with me performing these actions as a local administrator instead of as a steward."), there's a risk involved of discouraging stewards from taking any administrative action at all on Meta if they haven't passed the local RfA procedure. I see no reason not to give stewards the local sysop flag automatically, which would certainly simplify things, at least from my point of view. Mathonius (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Actions other than those described on Meta:MSR are not related to steward tasks at all, and thus would fall under "want[ing] the right independent[ly] of their stewardship", as Billinghurst describes it. If users feel uncomfortable with users acting within a policy that's rather their own problem than the steward's, though of course one could assign them "temporary" and redundant admin flags to make it clear that stewards may act as meta admins in case their actions are related to their steward work. Vogonetalk 12:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)