Meta:Requests for temporary adminship/Sj

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Sj[edit]

Sj (talk • contribs • deleted user contributions • logs • block log • abuse log • CentralAuth • stalktoy) Bureaucrats: user rights management.

I'm trying to clean up some pages on meta around trademark use and swag, and it would help to see some previously deleted pages on those topics. Until we update mediawiki to let anyone see deleted revisions, this still requires adminship. Thanks, –SJ talk 19:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry for being a bit bothered about petty details, but it reflects poor on the candidate that he's not bothered to follow the schema we use for RfAs (heading, templates, etc.), nor the naming conventions (this is a temporary adminship request). Please fix. Also, I have few questions. What is "swag" and, "until we update mediawiki to let anyone see deleted revisions", what is that as well? Are you aware of w:WP:Viewing deleted content, which bans non-admins to access deleted contributions? Also, please state for how long adminship will be required. —Marco Aurelio 19:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ (Updated: Neutral, see below), but as MarcoAurelio suggests, the request should be filled out with more info. I don't see why this shouldn't be a regular RfA -- SJ does plenty of good stuff around here, and there are no concerns about abuse of tools. If he happens to drop off and not perform admin actions, it will become "temporary" by our normal processes after 6 to 12 months, as his adminship will expire unless actively maintained. -Pete F (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My original reason for supporting has to do with my overall familiarity with the candidate, but not with anything in the request. As a matter of good governance, I find MarcoAurelio's points compelling. We should not show favoritism based on personal knowledge; we should make decisions based on the reasons presented. I look forward to fully supporting the restoration of full administrative rights, but I feel I can only do so with the full engagement of the candidate. -Pete F (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's let SJ do this work. Thanks for volunteering! MarcoAurelio is right but I know that SJ has an immense respect for the community and culture around this wiki, so I'm not particularly bothered. He can also fix the format later, if nobody else beats him at it. Nemo 22:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Format fixed per {{sofixit}}. —Marco Aurelio 12:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Sj had full admin (and bureaucrat) rights from 2005 to 2015. He appears to have only lost them in October 2015 due to missing the threshold of admin actions, and not making a request. Isn't there a way to address this mere technicality? Can't we simply re-activate his previous adminship, which he lost for no reason other than inaction? -Pete F (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. If rights are lost due to inactivity, candidate must regain them via a new RfA. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards, —Marco Aurelio 12:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support —DerHexer (Talk) 21:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support —BRP^ever 09:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No answers, no activity. —Marco Aurelio 11:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -FASTILY 08:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral change mind — AYST201 (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is a trusted user. If he needs and will use the right, I don't see any problem with giving it to him. Samat (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MarcoAurelio. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, as I would except the candidate to answer all questions asked. --Stryn (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I trust the user, but this candidacy has too much hand-waving that makes me uncomfortable. We give out rights because they are to be used, and I'm not convinced by the rationale. --Rs chen 7754 19:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Ochilov (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's obvious to me that Sj would be trusted with the permissions, but I like to see reasons in RFAs, and the reasoning given doesn't really seem to prove that adminship is required. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Certainly trustworthy, but I'd like to see your answers to Marco's questions. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I parse the request as "until the software and social rules change such that all users can see deleted edits; I need to see deleted edits to handle these tasks". So, no issues in giving the flag permanently, as deleted edits are not going to become public anytime soon, and most likely never without a WMF policy change. Courcelles 17:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done There is no consensus here. Maybe you can make a request later again with a clearer description when you are also around to answer questions about your request. --MF-W 23:26, 6 April 2016 (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.