Meta:Requests for adminship/Mardetanha 2

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

Mardetanha

Mardetanha (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Ending 20:20, 4 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Currently involved with translations, Mardetanha was recently de-adminned, but would like to return to doing regular maintenance on Meta. -- Menti fisto 21:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more than happy to serve meta in all my capabilities Mardetanha ^talk 21:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support YES, I'm the first one to vote, recently, mardetanha's review on Mjbmr account was helpful.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 21:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Avi (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Green Giant (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose @Aldnonymous: what review? how he can review my account? and I can't his. he is a intruder, he invaded users privacy, now he's trying to be a good guy. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 22:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? Alan ^(talk) 23:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. -- Menti fisto 23:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets the criteria for meta adminship, trusted user. — billinghurst sDrewth
Support -- ARASH PT talk 05:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alan :P Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 05:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eurodyne (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? -FASTILY 07:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no need for the sysop tools. In the past six months, Mardetanha has made one request for deletion in December (which he could have performed as a steward under the MSR if he was up-to-date on policies). Ajraddatz (talk) 08:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My Crat,OS and CU flag went on hiatus due to my admin flag removal, I have been needing them more recently. Mardetanha ^talk 10:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could some bureaucrat please confirm that the CU/OS flags removed during the inactivity process would indeed be restored in case of a successful RFA? Vogone (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a bureaucrat, I am not of the opinion that that would be the correct thing to do. --MF-W 14:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a former crat, I should say, Meta has no CU/OS/Crat inactivity policy to remove any person's right based on that, and honestly I found my CU/OS/Crat flag removal really unorthodox, so they only logical explanation would be to put those access on hiatus Mardetanha ^talk 15:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very uncomfortable with someone automatically becoming a CU/OS just because they happened to be one a while ago. What exactly do you need those rights for that you can't already do with your steward bit? What would you use 'crat rights for, considering renaming is now done by stewards/global renamers and the only thing that 'crats do is grant and remove certain user rights? Ajraddatz (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
why automatic? There has been successful RFCU and RFOS, I have been using those rights as needed, In the past weeks there has been incidents that convinced me, I would need my rights back, on the other hand, given your words it is not much of big deal, it won't add much anything to me just to ease my job fighting with vandals. Mardetanha ^talk 16:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CU and OS bits are never restored when removed, nor a crat could ever do that, since the procedure is normed here and here. «The community must approve local CheckUsers (stewards not counting as local CheckUsers) per consensus. The user requesting CheckUser status must request it within his local community and advertise this request properly (village pump, mailing list when available, ...). The editor must be familiar with the privacy policy. After gaining consensus (at least 70%-80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in his local community, and with at least 25-30 editors' approval, the user should list himself under Steward requests/Permissions with a link to the page with the community's decision.» --M/ (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (Post scriptum. Admin and bureaucrat bits can be indeed handled differently when user relinquished them uncontroversially, but this does not apply to CU/OS bits. Please refer to past requests handled recently on meta.wiki (1 and 2).[reply]
M7 as local crat (though it is question for all crats), would you please tell me why my rights (OS/CU) were removed then? under what or which policy ? even if I have been inactive as an admin, it has nothing to do with my other advanced rights? Mardetanha ^talk 21:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inactivity. Local advanced rights are always removed in these cases. The definition of an Oversighter on meta is Users with access to the oversight tool (called oversighters) are highly trusted administrators. --M/ (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was not like this before you didn't have to be admin to be oversighter (in old days it was revision deletion rather than new system), My OS flag went on hiatus automatically because my admin flag removed, so if it going to be reinstated, other rights should be treated in the same way,, and even if we accept your reading of that policy, it has nothing to do with CU flag, as crat, I do expect you to be guardian of policies Mardetanha ^talk 21:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could certainly ask for other opinions, but to reinstate OS or CU flag without a vote would be - per policy - unfeasible and also unconvenient, since there will be for sure people not agreeing with that action. Once lost, for whatever reason, a new election for those two local rights has to be done. --M/ (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please kindly point me to the policy "Once lost, for whatever reason, a new election for those two local rights has to be done.", it was not lost, it was wrongly removed, and as local crat, i was expecting you (not you per se all crats) to voice against it, but since my first rule of editing was to avoid wiki-dramas, I didn't bring it on wiki (I sent an email to steward-l regarding possible breach of policy), though I have no problem going through RFCU and RFSO again, but it is clear you reading of policy is wrong. Mardetanha ^talk 22:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read above provided links. I also remember you mailed about that and there were also onwiki discussions where no consensus was reached. --M/ (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have feeling you deliberately ignore my question, I am asking about policies which my rights were removed? 22:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
a) Your rights were removed since you were no longer an admin locally. You have to be admin if you want to get advanced right flags on this wiki. Questions were raised on this point, but there was no consensus to change this practice.

b) Your advanced local rights (CU / OS) will be restored only if you, after becoming admin again, reach the necessary consensus and take at least the number of votes stated in the policies. --M/ (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you accept my admin rights were removed because of my admin flag removal, as I told before we don't remove people rights for that reason, First It is not Meta policy, It is not wmf policy and it is even policy in any wiki, Those rights should be handed very carefully and should be taken away in same manner. There is no long-term practice about this, maybe one, but it doesn't make it practice, So those rights were removed completely against current policy. For being CU you don't have to be admin (We had it in somewikis. Again it is clear for me your understating is wrong. Mardetanha ^talk 22:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that there are different opinions here, I think it's best to discontinue this discussion now... --MF-W 22:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ajraddatz, MSR should be sufficient. For translation work no admin flag is needed. Vogone (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy to have Mardetanha back, helping out with maintenance here. Aude (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Kind of on the bridge here... --Atcovi (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uğurkent^talk 20:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit uncomfortable with the removal for inactivity; besides the inactivity itself, the reaction was a bit disappointing. --Rs chen 7754 02:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but the inactivity and the discussion above leads me to oppose, especially because I don't think you should automatically regain CU/OS. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not inactive in the given period of time, I had both logged action and edits, all combined more than required, Also I had also many steward actions in that period (which I was thinking would be also counted as logged action since they are performed on and showed I am still around) Mardetanha ^talk 03:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made under 50 edits in 2014, and almost all your edits since have been translations (which are greatly appreciated, don't require adminship at all). Since your steward confirmation looks like it will pass at this point, I don't understand why you need to be a local admin. Do you need to do anything not covered by WM:MSR? You made two deletion requests in 2014, one in June and one in December. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As things turn out here, you have to be admin to gain or regain your advanced rights (given the above discussion) Mardetanha ^talk 03:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the 12 months before your rights were removed, you made 4 suppressions (all on the same day) [1], 0 local rights changes [2], 0 renames, and 10 CUs (over the 6 month period). The rationale for this RFA being that you want to resume with all of these advanced rights isn't reassuring (besides the significant policy issues). --Rs chen 7754 03:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not super active in 2014 since it was a very hectic year for me, but I was around and were doing my job, and I think I met minimum requirement to retain my rights. That how life goes, I can't fight it Mardetanha ^talk 03:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I completely understand that, but if one is going to be that inactive for such a long time, they should consider allowing others to take up the responsibilities, especially if there are so many that people are depending on you to do. (Incidentally, that was one of the factors behind my stepping down as a steward: while I met all activity requirements, I didn't feel like I could really be effective in all of my roles, and something had to go). --Rs chen 7754 03:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I do respect you for doing that, but it seems I would have more time this year though there no guaranty what would like put in front of you, so I think, I still play more role in handling issues in Meta Mardetanha ^talk 03:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have seen this user doing various actions around the wiki and they seem like a net asset. Reguyla (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Going to land here. Not comfortable with someone being an admin who is unfamiliar enough with policy to think a new RFA would restore CU and OS bits. Not seeing a need for this bit given MSR. Courcelles 06:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As described above, Meta has no OS/CU removal policy per inactivity (only CU has on year inactivity policy which is not my case), the removal was wrong in the first place, and my interpretation of the meta policy is if they were removed based admin inactivity policy (which i was active and had enough edits), then they should be restored in the same way though it seems local crats do not agree with me about issue and I respect their interpretation even if I think it is not correct Mardetanha ^talk 07:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as unsuccessful, <75% support (13/6/1).: --M/ (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]