Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/Blood Red Sandman 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well, 7 oppose and 6 support. Maybe if user gets re-involved, we should look at it again. Closed as not successful.--Bddpaux (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) — bureaucratship

Hi. Blood Red Sandman has been one of the most important editors on Wikinews. BRS was away from the project for several months, for genuine reasons, and now they are back. They lost the b'crat bis due to PeP. A trustworthy editor, an AR, reviewer and admin; I trust BRS with b'crat rights and would like to nominate them to regain these privs, provided they accept this nomination. --•–• 07:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

Links for Blood Red Sandman: Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Questions and comments

Comment I accept, in principle, although I don't suppose it's too urgent to get them right now. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We are well over a year now. Some decision needs to be reached. In terms of votes: it looks about 54% against for the moment.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support as nominator.
•–• 07:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose didn't meet the activity requirements of an administrator or reviewer (see Wikinews:Privilege expiry policy); before June 1, 2020 no edits or log actions since February 2019. The rights weren't removed, and the user may be active again (I say may to avoid assuming anything, noting that so far all of their edits since returning have been related to the creation of a single category) but until they are a more active participant in the community again I cannot in good conscience support granting more rights, especially in light of the fact that wikinews' need for bureaucrat actions is quite low. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update to reiterate oppose after it was noted that this is regaining the privileges: policy says that "A period of re-acclimation with the project, being active, becoming familiar with current policies and observing current use of said privileges may be followed with fast-tracked request for the rights to be reinstated." - no such period has yet to take place as far as I can tell, so this request may not be timely. That being said, the fast-tracked procedure requires "at least two users currently trusted with similar or greater privileges", as well as "no doubts [being] expressed nor expected", and thus does not apply here as doubts have been expressed (by me) and there is only 1 user with similar or greater privileges (bureaucrat). --DannyS712 (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Policies regarding b'crat did not change during the time of BRS's inactivity. So a "said period" is not warranted. We do have two users with similar or greater privs. As far as "no doubts" is concerned, expressing concerns over not-spending-enough-time learning updated policies when the relevant policies were not change is not a legitimate doubt.
•–• 08:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says that a period of re-acclimation is called for - policies can be changed, but for now this is the policy. As for whether my doubt is "legitimate", my doubt was about not being an active member of the community, not about learning updated policies. There is no criteria in the policy for what is a "legitimate" doubt, nor does the word "legitimate" appear in the policy at all, and I resent the misrepresentation of my concerns, and the mischaracterization of them as illegitimate. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: To better understand your position (without taking any position on any of this myself, atm): is your objection solely about activity level; and if so, does that imply that there is a level of activity at which you would withdraw your objection? --Pi zero (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest objection is regarding activity, but it is not my sole objection. That does imply that there is a level of activity at which I would withdraw that objection; I can't say what that level is, but w:I know it when I see it --DannyS712 (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of what was said above has anything to do with regaining the privs. But let's wait for a few days.
•–• 08:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the nomination did not at the time specify that they were regaining the privileges (I responded at Special:Permalink/4567478#Blood_Red_Sandman_(talk_·_contribs)_—_bureaucratship, before you changed the nomination statement in Special:Diff/4567481) so it would make sense for what I said not to have anything to do with regaining the privileges, because that was only first mentioned afterwards. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Had to update because you did not know BRS's history on this project, and very likely did not see their talk page.
•–• 08:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've no doubt whatever about the suitability of the nominee. --Pi zero (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Competent candidate, without doubts, from my perspective. --Gryllida (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to see an old hand around -- and a trustworthy one. Tyrol5 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have known BRS for more than a dozen years. A highly valued member of the Wikinews team if there ever was one. --SVTCobra 01:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent track record. No reason to not restore this permission. -- Green Giant (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's not the (in)activity alone. Also, giving the less-than-active admin another privilege is risky, especially in terms of security. I don't think the project has enough resources to defend itself from those wanting to hack into an inactive admin's account and screw up the project. The PeP addresses this... well, in one paragraph. Retaining and preserving other inactive admins' privileges are also risky and project security risks. --George Ho (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Danny and George. The user has been inactive since August (six months ago), and I would rather not have an inactive user promoted as crat. --IWI (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately. Way too inactive. Leaderboard (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I truly have no record of this person's activity nor, therefore, confirmation of their competence in this regard. --JJLiu112 (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose...and I really hate to! Has had periods of being SUPER ACTIVE here and has times of being just perfectly AWESOME! But: has gone big time radio silent here recently, and we just don't need that....we need solid, checked in 'Crats.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At this time, as much as I really want to support this, I can't support this, per inactivity as discussed above. —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 03:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.