Meta:Requests for limited adminship/Viztor

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Viztor[edit]

Ending 21 July 2019 18:29 (UTC)

Hi, as a member of the tech team of WAM, I am currently working on organizing the pages of the project on meta, some of the previous events pages are quite mixed up, I'd like to request a limited adminship on all Wikipedia Asian Month pages and subpages including but not limited to content pages in /Wikipedia Asian Month ?.*/, template pages in /Template:WAM ?.*/ until such time when I am no longer a member of WAM project team. This may also include pages of Wikipedia Asian Month User Group until such time it formally approves a bylaw to have a separate team or when I am no longer a part of WAM team. Thank you. Viztor (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Question: Can you please clarify why do you need admin tools to organize those pages? If you want to delete some pages or suppress some redirects, you can continue to request at meta:RFD (though they are currently backlogged) or tag them with deletion templates. I believe you are in good faith to make this request but I am afraid the community would not give you the bit (though limited) just for stuff like that. However, if you do have some complex tasks to do, please let us know and we may consider it. Thanks.-- 94rain Talk 19:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, granted, requests works, just slow, however, I believe it is standard practice to authorize someone from a project limited adminship to that project so we can just do all these things on our own. Specifically, in addition to deletion, I need to split content of some pages which was used in different years of WAM, which can be quite complex and difficult to explain, in other cases where I simply need to move some pages, I bump into rate limit easily, which is not ideal as I'm housing-keeping for the project. 94rain, I hope this clarifies your questions. Viztor (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for clarification. Sorry I was not familiar with those standard practices. I do not want to bring up other issues but I do not think they would misuse their tools for unauthorized tasks as doing so will be grounds for immediate removal according to the policy. So I Support Support.--94rain Talk 04:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC) After reading comments below and searching through previous RfLAs, I still do not think I am clear about how limited adminship actually processes, what these standard practices really are. Neither is my support that determined from the very beginning. I guess I'd better not participate in these discussions and now withdraw this vote. --94rain Talk 14:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support seems like a good reason. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support TonyBallioni (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proceedural question: Do we grant limited adminship to people who are non WMF sysops? Questions to @Viztor:. Firstly, how can you assure us that you wont misuse the rights as your Pending Change Reviewer right was stopped in enwp after several wrong acceptance , I dont know are they wrong but the people deemed so. I also see lots of issues on your enwp talkpage. Secondly, what specific tasks do you need the mop tool for? Lastly, how long you need the tools for. Limited Adminship is 1 month by default, do you need it longer? Thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've stated it pretty clearly in my response to 94rain's question. Cohaf, let me know if any of these is unclear to you, thanks. Viztor (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will like you to confirm you are asking tasks regarding WAM and related pages, as long you remain part of WAM team. For moves and history splits. I wish to know do you read the administrator guide on how to do history splits and also to be very honest, rate limits can be solved by giving account creator. I am inclined to support but then the way you handle other tools such as PCR will make me hesitate as meta sysop is very powerful and can be prone to lots of issues. The last time I supported someone for Limited Sysop for a specific task didn't turn out that well for community, and they have that experience in other wikis and seems very competent. --Cohaf (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, the requested scope is all WAM related pages and if the circumstance do not change WAMUG-related pages as well. It's unfortunate to hear someone who you voted for has misused that permission, and I share your concern, it is desirable if you wish to be more prudent when casting your votes. Viztor (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would say that the previous person I supported just didn't know community norms, not misused the permission. They did not misuse any permissions. --Cohaf (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose time unlimited access to tools for someone with no administrative position on any wiki where that person has unlimited vision of deleted pages/files, related histories, abuse filters, etc. seems both unnecessary and out of scope for what is being requested.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an application for limited adminship, not a general one. Had meta had a different set of conventions I would have not applied. I also have signed confidential agreement with WMF for other reasons, and I do not need to access these you mentioned, had a more limited role been designed, I would not have applied for this one, and you're welcome to propose. Merci beaucoup. Viztor (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Billinghurst mentions "time unlimited access". I'm not sure that's being requested in this request for limited admin status. How long is WAM running? When would you anticipate being done with cleanup and being able to relinquish the tools? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The local organizers of WAM's work in October and ends in December, as the event is the full November. The international team's work starts a lot early and this year is in June. We've been working with WMF and preparing all the infrastructures for the local organizers to use, we expect our pages on meta to be updated relatively frequently till December when most of the local organizers finalize their work, then we may use an additional month or two to work on data analysis and finalize our statistics + project report to the Foundation and to the community. In addition, the User Group is approved last year and our affiliate report will be due this September, we may have additional work because of that though I have not specific details yet. StevenJ81, this is the rough timeline for this year's event and I hope you find it helpful! Viztor (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Clear need for the tools and experienced editor. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose I have given sufficient thought. Mainly per Billinghurst. I am of the view that they can use requests to move as necessary, and they are moving very old pages which can be just easily deleted per uncontroversial housekeeping, will not add much load to sysops. In addition, the rate limits can be overcame by account creator rights (temporary when moving), it's a less dangerous right rather than sysop. Lastly, the private information in filters IMO is the greatest barriers to obtain the right. I will not oppose if they are a local rollbacker in zhwp as they will have experience in filters, they are not unfortunately. Lastly, their tenure on meta is extremely short, if there's a user who isn't a sysop in a WMF wiki applying for this but have ample meta experience, why not do an IAR. I thank them for helping but sorry, it is way too much worries that I cannot support. --Cohaf (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose as per Billinghurst. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Question: should you be granted the tools, to what extent (in terms of amount of work) do you anticipate you'll be using the sysop tools? Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 14:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of them will be routine maintenance of the pages and subpages of the respective namespace, mass move of pages with/without redirect, delete unused pages, protect/unprotect pages, mark for translation, occasionally complicated task like splitting history of pages that were used in different years of project, also possibly other tasks for someone within the team limited to the scope defined in this application. Hiàn, most of them are quite routine work, and due to the on-going situation for the project, It can be difficult to estimate the amount of work as this is under an ongoing basis, at times, I may have few dozens, if not hundreds of edits resulted from these procedures and sometimes one would just do, I expect myself to delete hundred of pages in similar pattern that were created from moving a page specifically, hope this answers your question. Viztor (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose the use-case doesn't seem sufficient to me, existing sysops should be able to manage this. If someone from the "WAM Tech Team" needs this for something, I'd be more supportive of Ле Лой having temporary access (as they are a functionary elsewhere with lots of contributions). — xaosflux Talk 13:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, Ле Лой could even be a full admin if needed. If they need help to move pages, I can help too using the flags I have and I am willing to do so. Although that is IAR. --Cohaf (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Le Loi will continue to be the lead developer of Fountain, which is the main tool we use, and this year we're revamping the interfaces and user experience and most of the time we expect the team to be in active development. He is also responsible for the operational stability + db management of the tool, in addition to the API+occasional front end development, I will be responsible for most of the front end update, we're still discussing specific plans and we are likely going to conduct a survey soon, and I will working closely with other teams on our websites, emails, online storage, our portal here and other infrastructure that support their work, and Le Loi will take the head in the development of the tool, I hope this work division makes sense, obviously we have limited personnel, so we have to combine some roles. Anyhow, I don't see this to be a particular problem. If we subject people of limited adminship as we do full adminship then this role would never have existed in the first place. We're doing this project as a team, and this is what the team has worked out. Viztor (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Billinghurst and Cohaf bring up good points. The applicant is requesting rights with a vague use-case that would allow them to, technically speaking, view and modify everything a normal metawiki admin would with no experience as an administrator on any project. Thank you for volunteering, Vermont (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment Per my question above, I see a "limited" window that is going to be 6–9 months long. That's pretty long. On the other hand, if the project has decided that this seems like a good division of labor, who am I to question that? Since people here seem to have some confidence in @Ле Лой, why don't we ask Ле Лой directly: do you support this candidacy? I will add: if in the end there is sufficient support for this candidacy, your use of the tools this time will determine if you would then get them again next year. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • StevenJ81, I don't really know the candidate that much and we've never worked together so I can't be of much help here, sorry. I don't work with the Meta pages so I might be wrong, but in my opinion there's no big deal with posting requests to move pages, especially with Cohaf's kindly provided help. On the other hand, I might have a limited picture because I just don't do much in WAM outside of the Fountain tool development and organising WAM in my home wiki. Le Loy 02:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. I've given this some thought, and per the others I don't feel I can support this candidacy. While the task seems fairly reasonable, my opposition is mainly based on their apparent lack of experience with administrative tools - if these tasks are so comprehensive that a WAM organiser must be a sysop, I'd prefer Le Loi or another fairly experienced user to take on that role. Hiàn (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there's no consensus in this request. Sorry. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_limited_adminship/Viztor&oldid=21543044"