Meta talk:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth4

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Deciding the outcome[edit]

It looks to me that there's consensus to grant Lustiger seth the tools for work restricted to spam/title blacklist issues and related ones, but not a regular adminship. Unless MF-Warburg or Barras objects, I'd grant the user and indefinite temporary adminship for spam and title blacklist management only as it seems the majority wouldn't object to that. —MarcoAurelio 12:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only want to edit the SBL, TBL, and mabye AbuseFilter and related pages. And I don't care the group I am in. So, if that "ind. temp. adminship" (what a nice name!) is enough for that, that's ok for me.
Nevertheless I totally disagree with user:Vogone. The reasons Vogone gave are valid reasons against the present rules for being an admin or losing the admin rights. However, the given reasons in my opinion do not make sense when opposing to a single adminship. -- seth (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is unrelated to the outcome, but I don't understand why you think so. AFAICS his main oppose reason is that you only made a few edits to the blacklists in the past year and that these could easily be done by other admins, e.g. via editprotected requests. This is a valid opinion. --MF-W 19:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stated and showed already, that those edits could not easily be done by others. And I don't see, why a normal adminship would be a negative thing.
Of course I could have split this edit into several 100 edits to not run into the automatic admin removal, but that would just float the history.
I would be happy, if the rules would be revised. But I don't have the time to try to initialize that. So I have to accept whatever you decide. -- seth (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it would be easy to make such edits by making them elsewhere and giving them to an admin to copy. Especially if it is only a small number of edits. --MF-W 03:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would definitely not be easier, but useless. I commented on that already at Meta:Requests_for_adminship/lustiger_seth4. -- seth (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I said "easy", not easier. And how peculiar that these edits actually are useless. --MF-W 23:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding lustiger seth. Since he's okay with indefinite temporary adminship for blacklists and maybe abusefilters, I think we can go ahead and grant them. Any objections MF-Warburg or Barras? —MarcoAurelio 10:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we should have a clear definition, not "maybe". Abusefilters also weren't mentioned in the request at all. --MF-W 20:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning "maybe": Sometimes the edit filters are used for complicated sbl-requests. It is then helpful to have at least the ability to look inside the public and the private edit filters. At least in dewiki and enwiki it's like that. AFAIR the edit filter here at meta is only working at meta and not globally. In that case I don't need any edit filter rights here. -- seth (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are global abusefilters, they are however not really global (they don't apply on big wikis, like dewiki and enwiki); the public ones of which are obviously visible to all. --MF-W 23:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice, if I could keep the possibility to look inside the private rules. If not, I'll survive. -- seth (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I'm grating limited adminship for spam blacklist management only for an indefinite period of time. Viewing abusefilters is allowed but modifying them are not. @Lustiger seth will however be subject to signature on each October inactivity round and failure to sign will mean removal of the tools. Thank you, —MarcoAurelio 14:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]