Jump to content

Meta:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Browse history interactively
← Older edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎[[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]]: withdrawing my support; no vote
Tag: Manual revert
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Dynamite|title=Meta:Requests for adminship/header}}
<div style="float:right; width:15em;">{{shortcut|[[WM:RFA]]}}{{Meta}}</div>
If you would like to become an admin of Meta, please follow the [[#Procedure|procedure]] below. This is a serious responsibility. For example meta-admins can edit the fundraising page.


*For Requests for adminship on other wikis see '''[[Requests for permissions]]'''.
== Requests for regular adminship ==
{{none}}


== Requests for limited adminship ==
Full policy is available on [[Administrator on Meta#Policy for requesting adminship]].
{{none}}


== Requests for interface adminship ==
You may request to be administrator if:
: ''Please see [[Special:MyLanguage/Meta:Interface administrators|Meta:Interface administrators]] before applying. Regular administrators may apply directly at [[Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat]].''
{{none}}


== Requests for bureaucratship ==
# You are, or have been, a participant for at least 2 months on at least one wikimedia project (at least 100 contributions).
{{none}}
# You have a user page on meta, with link(s) to the local project user page, and valid contact address (registered and valid wikipedia email address in preferences, or an email address indicated on your user page).
# You are (or perhaps have been some time ago) an active contributor on meta (more than 100 contributions). '''And'''
# You are a sysop on a local wikipedia or related project.


== Requests for CheckUser access ==
The request will stay here ''at least'' 1 week. Sysophood will be granted by a majority of at least 75%.
: ''"Meta:Requests for checkuser" redirects here. To request checkuser information, see [[Meta:Requests for CheckUser information]].''
{{none}}


== Requests for Oversight access ==
:'''If there seems to be no bureaucrat arround to carry out the promotion you can ask for it on [[Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat|Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat]]'''
: ''"Meta:Requests for oversight" redirects here. To request oversighting, see [[Meta:Oversighters#Requests]].''
==Exceptions==
{{none}}


== Requests for translation adminship ==
If you need temporary sysop access to edit protected pages (related in particular to languages files), you may request temporary sysophood on meta. In this case, the adminship shall be granted with no requirements and approval, but the user will promise to limit their activity to the necessity of the local project. Sysop access will be valid for one month.
{{none}}


== Requests for CentralNotice adminship ==
==Procedure==
<!-- Please create subpages as with RfAs like "Meta:Requests for CentralNotice adminship/Barras" or something like that! -->
{{none}}


== Requests for bot flags ==
# Make an edit to your talk page on the wiki where you are an administrator about the request specifying the nickname you are using here (for example):
<!-- Please create a subpage, and transclude it below, for example: {{Meta:Requests for bot status/Examplebot}} -->
#:<tt>I am requesting adminship on Meta for the account <nowiki>[[:m:User:</nowiki>''<Account>'']]. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></tt>
{{none}}
# Request adminship on this page
# Include here the link to that version in history of your talk page to confirm your identity


== Recently created sysops ==
== See also ==
* [[Special:MyLanguage/Meta:Administrators|Current administrators]]
Archives of sysops since 2004: [[Meta:Requests for adminship/Archive1|archive 1]] | [[Meta:Requests for adminship/Archive2|archive 2]]
* [[Meta:Administrators/Removal|Current removal discussions]]
* [[Meta:Administrators/confirm|Previous confirmation discussions]] {{dimGray|'''(obsolete)'''}}
* [[Special:MyLanguage/Meta:Requests and proposals|Index of requests and proposals]]
* [[Special:MyLanguage/User groups|Information on user groups]]
* [[Special:MyLanguage/Meta:Meta–steward relationship|Meta–steward relationship]]


{{RF}}
<!-- please do not archive new sysops without listing them at Meta:Administrators#List_of_administrators -->


==Current requests==
[[Category:Meta-Wiki requests]]
[[Category:Meta-Wiki administrators| ]]
For adminship on other wikis, visit [[Requests for permission]]. Thank you!

<!-- latest first: make your request just below this line. -->
=== [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak (bureaucrat)]] ===
Hi everyone, I've been a sysop for a few months now, and I've been a bureaucrat on English Wikipedia since December. In connection with [[Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta]], I am requesting that I be given bureaucratship rights. RFA is often backlogged, and username change requests on Meta are non-existent. I want to help speed up things, so I'm asking that you give me a vote of confidence. It won't be a big deal if I'm not given the bureaucrat flag, but it would be a great help.

I first looked at the Meta RFA process to see if there was anything in relation to bureaucrats. There wasn't. I asked Jimbo if I could be a bureaucrat, and after a quick discussion, he said that he had no problem with me being one. He pointed me to Angela and Anthere for confirmation. Angela told me to go here, so here I am. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] 01:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' Per Aphaia, basically. <small>[[User:RN|Just another star in the night]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 02:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. Jimbo's assent is good enough for me. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': <del>Currently</del>. The proposed reasons seem not to make a sense to me. Without bureaucrat flag, anyone can create those pages, and we have already many bureaucrats on meta. --[[User:Aphaia|Aphaia]] 02:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
**I stated that I want to keep RFA up to date and process username changes. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] 02:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
***You don't make a sense. I stated you could have drafted username change policy in details and set a request page, without flag. As for RFA, I haven't seen you archive past votes which could be archived without disputes, as far as I know. --[[User:Aphaia|Aphaia]] 03:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
****After checking your deletion log, I incline to more stronger voice; though your effort and good will, you seem still not to be familiar to meta & its policies, and suitable for admin privilege at this moment, regretfully. --[[User:Aphaia|Aphaia]] 06:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
**If there are enough bureaucrats, please answer: where are they and what are they doing? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 17:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''', gently. Only a question of need; I don't see a need for more bureaucrats at this time. Intervene only when there is an extent problem, and then only enough to resolve that problem. - [http://journowiki.org/wiki/User:Amgine Amgine] / <sup>[http://journowiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Amgine talk] [[User talk:Amgine|meta]]</sup> 04:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
**If we don't need more bureaucrats, where are the present ones? There appears to be nobody minding the store - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 17:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Utterly committed, utter trustworthy. The only to restrict 'crat enterance is security, but there are no security issues with Linuxbeak --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc glasgow]] 12:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
** 15 edits on meta. All to user page and vote here. [[User:Anthere|Anthere]]
***(True, so discount the vote if that's the rules - but being an admin with 10k+ edits on en.wiki perhaps entitles me to be a character witness)--[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc glasgow]] 18:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
***So you therefore suspect he is a sockpuppet, a shill or is otherwise voting in bad faith? (Those being the usual reasons for putting someone's editing pattern after a vote.) If you consider he is voting in bad faith, please do state so outright. If you do not, please clarify why you added this comment - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 20:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
****Perhaps that the user is not an "active" meta user, and in that vien perhaps "misled". I remember a tiff a while back about en admins not being able to be commons admins... sort of the same thing here maybe? Meta and en are different projects, but I understand the fervant support of users who are otherwise good admins on en. <small>[[User:RN|Just another star in the night]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 23:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*****No, not like this at all &mdash; the commons issue was because the service project's deletion of images used on the encyclopedia project was affecting the encyclopedia project. (That was part of the ongoing issue that some people on Commons appear to have decided it is a separate project and not the service project for the other wikis it was created as. One consequence of this is that, e.g, en.wikinews recommends users ''not'' use Commons, and instead upload images locally, because they feel Commons just cannot be relied on for their purposes.) - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 08:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for all the reasons listed above. [[User:Notafish|notafish]] [[User talk:Notafish|}&lt;&#39;;&gt;]] 12:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - the present bureaucrats appear not to be doing the job. Millosh's "week-long" admin request was waiting ''how long?'' There is visibly no-one minding the store - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 17:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
**Well, it does say "at least 1 week" :) - but seriously while you are right, I'd rather pick someone else at the moment - or even better, Linuxbeak once he/she begins to understand meta policy. It's nothing against Linuxbeak either, I mean I have his/her message deal on my en talk page for crying out loud :). I'd like to see Linuxbeak as a bureaucrat as well, and I'm (and prob. others as well) just asking for a little more time. <small>[[User:RN|Just another star in the night]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 00:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*{{support}} [[User:Jon Harald Søby|Jon]] [[User talk:Jon Harald Søby|Harald]] [[:no:Bruker:Jhs|Søby]] 18:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Too new. [[User:Korg|Korg]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Korg|<font color="#FFD700">+</font>&nbsp;<sup><font color="#FF3333">+</font></sup>]] 02:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' why not? [[User:Brian_New_Zealand|Brian]] <sup>[[n:User:Brian_New_Zealand|Wikinews]]'' / ''[[n:User_talk:Brian_New_Zealand|Talk]]'' </sup> 09:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''' Many Meta admins are Stewards also, and the interface is common. I don't thinkis necessary. -[[User:Romihaitza|Romihaitza]] 12:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I think it not necessary. Not personal (I like LinuxBeak :-)) [[User:Anthere|Anthere]] 16:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per David Gerard. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 22:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - while Linuxbeak has my full confidence, I must agree with some of the previous oppose votes above. En is different from meta. Please give it more time, and I will gladly support. Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] [[User talk:Flcelloguy|(A note?)]] 23:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. <font color="#800000">[[User:Jean-Christophe Chazalette|villy]] ♦[[User talk:Jean-Christophe Chazalette|✎]] </font> 11:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''neutral''' - It is true sometimes it can take some time where befor a request is noticed. I have added "bureaucrats" to request page [[Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat]]. That will help. But you need to ask. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 10:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

=== [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] ===
I've been an editor on English Wikipedia since November, 2004, and became an admin there in March, 2005. As well as this, I have been appointed mentor to two editors by the Arbitration Committee, and in February was appointed a clerk to the Committee. I have developed one tool for tracking the history of anti-vandalism activities on an article, to enable administrators to make decisions on protecting articles. It works on all of the most active Wikipedias and I will adapt it to any other <s>Wikipedia</s> WikiMedia project on request.

David and I tend to think pretty similarly so he and I may find ourselves collaborating. I have set up a project to detect and fix bad deletions on the English Wikipedia and I am producing a tool to help with this--the tool will be as applicable to meta as to any other Wikimedia-owned project that is accessible from the [[Toolserver]]. Here's the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=45790541&oldid=45719636 confirmation diff] from en. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

*ZOMG CABAL! Heh. '''Support''' - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as Cabal member, etc. [[User:Esteffect|Esteffect]] 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
**Joined meta the very same day he voted (on the 28th
* '''Support'''. I can vouch for Tony as a nonIdiot(R) on en.wikipedia, and as a mindful admin. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] 00:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' you only have [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Tony+Sidaway&dbname=metawiki_p 90 edits]; the rules require that you have at least 100 on meta. Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] [[User talk:Flcelloguy|(A note?)]] 00:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
** Are you sure? Oh interiot's tool is most likely out of synch with the meta server. Check [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Tony+Sidaway this link] instead. Seems well over to me.--[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
** [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=315211 This] is about my hundredth edit, and I was well over by the time I nominated myself. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
***'''Oppose''' - yes, Interiot's Tool had a slight lag time of a few hours and showed only 90 edits. However, making over 400 edits in a two to three day timespan (most of them minor edits adding categories) during your RfA makes me hesitate; the 100 edit requirement is supposed to mean that you are active on meta. Before the edits on March 27, the day before your RfA started, you had 90 edits, indicating that you weren't active. I'm glad that you've started editing meta now, but please give it more time and I will support. Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] [[User talk:Flcelloguy|(A note?)]] 23:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
**** I'm sorry for the 400 edits. It's part of a project I'm doing for cleanup, and is likely to comprise most of what I'll be doing on meta for the next week or so. It is absolutely the case that a few days ago I had less than 100 edits. But I don't see what that had to do with anything really. I'm going to be continuing to bang off thousands of infrastructure edits in the near future, the effect of which will be, hopefully, to immeasurably improve the infrastructure of meta. It'll be easier for people from other projects to find things they need, basically. And that's what meta needs badly, in my opinion. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] 01:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Although I'm new to meta, there are serious claims he's abused admin and clerk powers on English Wikipedia. Perhaps those should be considered. See, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway the RFAr]. (So [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony_Sidaway en:User:Tony Sidaway] is on my watchlist.) [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] 02:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
**Why do I have the feeling that there is more to this story than you're telling us? [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] 02:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
***Of course there is. I'm asking those considering his adminship to consider the dispute there and decide whether his actions there, if repeated here, would be good for m:Wikipedia. Any summary I could make would probably be disputed by both Tony and the other admins involved in the wheel war. [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] 02:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
***The culture here may be sufficiently different that he wouldn't make admin decisions in conflict with that culture, as he has on en:Wikipedia. However, one of the proposed findings of fact (at, I think 7 for and 0 against) in the RFAr was that he engaged in a wheel war. &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 15:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
***No offense intended, Tony. I'm sure you won't hold this against me if our paths cross in the future. &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 15:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Question''' I suppose it is a bit facetious, but (and I see that is similar of Arthur's opinion as well) what assurances do we have that you will not go on rampages such as those (in the past perhaps?) on en? <small>[[User:RN|Just another star in the night]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 02:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
** I am aware of no suggestion that I have engaged in rampages on en. I have asked the arbitration committee to seriously consider desysopping me, and they have not taken the opportunity to do so. It appears that they still have confidence in my abilities as an administrator--if perhaps they'd rather I hadn't leapt head first into so many conflicts over applications of the deletion policy on en. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
** What "rampages", precisely, are you talking about? Please detail (a list of what concerns you personally, not a pointer to someone else's list) - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 17:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
***Wheel wars as raised above, although for some reason I don't see that as becoming as much of a problem here... besides, the recent catagorization and cleanup is insanely useful. <small>[[User:RN|Just another star in the night]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 00:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:Jacoplane|Jacoplane]] 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
* yes [[User:Anthere|Anthere]] 12:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Utterly committed, utter trustworthy. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc glasgow]] 12:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
** 15 edits on meta. All to user page and vote here.
:**(True, so discount the vote if that's the rules - but being an admin with 10k+ edits on en.wiki perhaps entitles me to be a character witness)--[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc glasgow]] 18:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
* '''Extreme Cabal Support'''. HTH HAND —[[User:PhilBoswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:PhilBoswell|Talk]] 08:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
* Good user, but '''Oppose''' for now. Little experience with meta; only 15 article edits prior to March 27. Recent interest shown in Meta is good to see; please come back in a month. [[User:Sj|Sj]] 17:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
* Support. Has a meta mentality and will do good cleanup work. Please do tread cautiously, though; Meta is a place of many memories. ;-) --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] 17:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Shouldn't even be an admin on en. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 22:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - and by the way, Blu Aardvark is on indefinite wikibreak which he only seems to come out of to oppose various RFAs. I wouldn't pay him any heed. --[[User:Cyde|Cyde]] 00:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
** No, he's a good chap. His views are just as valid as yours or mine. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
**I'm on an indefinate wikibreak, yes, but with the caveat that I may swing by to comment on discussions that interest me. I didn't come over to meta to oppose an RFA, however (indeed,I supported a different one just above this discussion). I came over here to oppose the inclusion of a site on the [[spam blacklist]], because it is leading to collateral damage on other projects, not even run by Wikimedia, that happen to run the MediaWiki software. However, I'm a [[wikiwikiweb:RecentChangesJunkie|RecentChangesJunkie]] (that's how I prefer to [[wikiwikiweb:WikiReadingHabits|read different wikis]]). This discussion was active, and I commented on it. Nothing too unusual, if you happen to look over my contributions on [[Wikipedia:Special:Contributions/Blu Aardvark|en]], [[VKoL:Special:Contributions/Aardvark|VKoL]], [[encyclopediadramatica:Special:Contributions/Blu Aardvark|ED]], or [[hrwiki:Special:Contributions/Blu Aardvark|hrwiki]]. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''neutral''' - We need Tony on the english wiki as much as possible. I'm not too keen on giving him away to meta. :) -([[w:User:Megaman Zero|Zero]] on the english wikipedia) [[User:K'|K&#39;]] 12:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

=== [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ===

I joined en: Wikipedia in late 2003 as [[:en:User:David Gerard]], I've been an admin on en: since mid-2004, I was an arbitrator on en: in 2005, I'm on the board of directors of Wikimedia UK and I have a pile of other jobs around Wikimedia listed on my en: user page (about fifteen total). This job found me when Linuxbeak suggested the "make Meta actually useful" project and I enthusiastically concurred. (My view of the project probably involves preserving more stuff than others might for historical reasons, fwiw; it'll be very useful being able to go through deletia to spot errors in deletion. Which will happen, because there's so much complete rubbish.) I have several hundred edits on Meta, I stopped counting after 300. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&diff=next&oldid=45717281 This edit] confirms my account on en: is my account here - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 19:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

*'''Violently-strong support'''. Get sysop'd and start working already, dammit. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] 20:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' --[[User:M7|M/]] 20:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 21:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
* '''<s>Support</s>''' - [http://journowiki.org/wiki/User:Amgine Amgine] / <sup>[http://journowiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Amgine talk] [[User talk:Amgine|meta]]</sup> 21:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*: I feel the need to withdraw my support from this candidate. I now '''Abstain'''. - [http://journowiki.org/wiki/User:Amgine Amgine] / <sup>[http://journowiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Amgine talk] [[User talk:Amgine|meta]]</sup> 23:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support''' by default. [[en:user:Esteffect|Esteffect]] 21:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
**Joined meta on the 28th of march
* <s>'''Support.''' [[User:Mindspillage|Mindspillage]] [[User talk:Mindspillage|(spill yours?)]] 22:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)</s>
* '''Against'''. First time this gentleman sent me an email was to be discourteous. Nobody can have serious talks without courtesy, especially here because of multilingualism: lack of understanding happens. <font color="#800000">[[User:Jean-Christophe Chazalette|villy]] ♦[[User talk:Jean-Christophe Chazalette|✎]] </font> 22:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
**This assertion would go better with evidence, which I presume will be fit to be revealed in a few days, as I thought your email that triggered it, and your response, were also quite quoteworthy. I should also note this was in a contentious discussion on a Foundation list (not a personal message as Villy implies) - yeah, it's Foundation politics - so can only be quoted by agreement when the matter in question is public; I'm OK with that and assume Villy will be, since he has asserted its relevance - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 22:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
***If I remember well these emails weren't on Foundation-L but on wmfcc-l. You quoted an email of mine and answered it. Hence I deduced I was at least the recipient of your mail too. I find that relevant enough to express this vote, which is the thing I am supposed to do in such a poll. Now, if you want to copy and paste those emails, I don't mind. I felt you didn't assume my good faith in this contentious matter and this is what I think is both unfair to me and not that much courteous. I'm not telling you won't be a good admin here. Just telling that I don't feel that much working with you here. Now, your election here on meta isn't really at risk, it's therefore pointless to dissert for hours about it. <font color="#800000">[[User:Jean-Christophe Chazalette|villy]] ♦[[User talk:Jean-Christophe Chazalette|✎]] </font> 23:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
****Your expressed opinions of en: Wikipedia - and, I note, blanking your en: user page a few days ago - show your own cross-project opinions notably - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 11:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*****I answered on Foundation-l [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-March/006491.html here]. This is just a blatant and appaling insinuation. <font color="#800000">[[User:Jean-Christophe Chazalette|villy]] ♦[[User talk:Jean-Christophe Chazalette|✎]] </font> 11:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
******That would describe your continued assertion that relevant criticism of your actions constitutes a "personal attack" - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 18:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
* Oh yes. '''Support'''. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support''' --[[User:Cspurrier|Cspurrier]] 22:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] [[User talk:Flcelloguy|(A note?)]] 22:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' --[[User:GraemeL|GraemeL]] 22:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] 23:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Not personally. But most of his edits on meta looks concerning only to ENWP related matters or IRC quotes. Only from those facts, it is dubious if he understands our policy and multilingualism principal. For further discussion, I expect his involvement to other projects than ENWP. --[[User:Aphaia|Aphaia]] 03:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This should be a slam-dunk. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc glasgow]] 12:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC) (please discount my opinion, as with few edits to meta, I'm apparently not allowed to comment - but as an admin on en.wiki with 10k+ edits, I offer a character reference for this applicant). --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc glasgow]] 18:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I know David from mailing lists as very constructive and reasonable community member. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 15:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*{{support}} [[User:Jon Harald Søby|Jon]] [[User talk:Jon Harald Søby|Harald]] [[:no:Bruker:Jhs|Søby]] 18:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[User:Korg|Korg]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Korg|<font color="#FFD700">+</font>&nbsp;<sup><font color="#FF3333">+</font></sup>]] 02:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
* '''Extreme Cabal Support'''. HTH HAND —[[User:PhilBoswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:PhilBoswell|Talk]] 08:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:Brian_New_Zealand|Brian]] <sup>[[n:User:Brian_New_Zealand|Wikinews]]'' / ''[[n:User_talk:Brian_New_Zealand|Talk]]'' </sup> 09:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*{{support}} [[User:Romihaitza|Romihaitza]] 12:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' [[User:Anthere|Anthere]] 16:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. [[User:Darkoneko|Darkoneko]] 16:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support.''' Good, helpful and intelligent user. But take it easy, David -- Villy's a good guy, too. Make love, not war, etc. ;-)--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 18:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
* '''Neutral.''' Good, longtime user on other projects; but inactive in the community here. Only '''1''' edit to a user talk page. [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=316744&oldid=316739 Recent comments] suggest he feels there are no current community norms on meta, which is not the case. Admins should wield their mops to respect and implement existing community standards, not to [re]write them. [[User:Sj|Sj]] 18:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
**So go to [[Babel]], where I asked just what this community was. If that isn't the page where discussion is conducted, why does it claim to be? That sort of thing is the problem with meta - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 08:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:Feydey|Feydey]] 23:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It too long since I was last able to vote in support of this guy.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 00:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Duh. Common sense is rare :) [this might be my first edit on meta? my account by the same name on en has 2000 edits though, and I read the wikien-l and wikipedia-l mailing lists. [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] 09:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

=== [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] ===
I've been an admin on en.wiki for over a year, and a Wikipedian for about 2 and a half years. I thought I'd help out on [[Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta]] also, and admin tools would be useful. I also had the unfortunate experience today of seeing a vandal in progress, but without admin tools on a slow connection I couldn't revert as fast as they could vandalize. Yes I plan to be conservative with deletion and whatever is different until I fully get the hang of how things are done here. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 01:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
:And while I think my identity is reasonably confirmed by the cross links on each page, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Taxman&diff=45498987&oldid=45355941 here] per procedure. :) - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 01:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''': If I got it right Taxman had 98 edits at the time of his nomination, thus I have a bad feeling. --[[User:Marbot|Marbot]] 18:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
**If he had 100, you wouldn't? If that's not the case, could you please expand on the "bad feeling"? Thanks! - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 19:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
***Well, the 100 edits is a mandatorily rule to ask for being an admin at least. The bad feeling, I have it as well. I see many english editors totally unknown from meta requesting sysop access or voting on others, on a project they absolutely do not know. For real meta editors, it is not really surprising they are a bit nervous about it. It is not because you know one project rules and community that you know them all. [[User:Anthere|Anthere]]
****It's fine if you feel that, but I've always thought adminship was more about trust. I did also have over the 100 edits at the time of nomination, especially if you count the deleted edits, and I have more now, so I believe that is moot as a technicality at least. More importantly I believe I've demonstrated I'm trustworthy and I'm not remotely going to do anything damaging. I've stated I'm not going to do anything borderline. I'm talking rollback and obvious vandal blocking here among other strong consensus backed admin actions until I get more familiar with the norms here. Check my record at en.wiki if you like, but I don't think anyone would disagree that I'm a very uncontroversial admin. Have I done something to give you a bad feeling beyond not being much over the limit? - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*****You have never done something bad as I am aware of. I am talking of a technicallity and rule on meta. Please read more on history below. I try to explain why the rules has been set as they are now. In short, why being an admin in some place does not automatically grant admin position here. It is nothing personal. If you do not apply rather stupid rules for speedy deletion such as "not encyclopedic", I will be entirely fine with you as an admin. I just tried to explain the "bad feeling" mentionned above. I hope I was clear below in my little explanation. [[User:Anthere|Anthere]]
******Well having a "bad feeling" about someone is very strong words, not something that seems warranted given the level of trust people generally place in me. In fact I'm trying hard not to take personal offense in it. And I haven't applied a speedy tag under that criteria, much less would I delete one under that, as I've mentioned. It seems there is a productive discussion about what to do with those old pages, so even though the speedy criteria does mention deleting pages that have nothing to do with projects, if the community comes to some agreement on what to do with historical pages that is fine. I'm still at a loss as to why you're so focused on the number of edits, when trust is more important, but it is up to you to make your own rationale. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 23:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*******" In fact I'm trying hard not to take personal offense in it." I have no idea why - Anthere explained the problem quite clearly "The bad feeling, I have it as well. I see many english editors totally unknown from meta requesting sysop access or voting on others, on a project they absolutely do not know". <small>[[User:RN|Just another star in the night]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 00:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
********I said why. Because having a bad feeling about someone is a lot stronger words than is justified in the situation. My nominating here had nothing to do with the other editors from en.wiki coming here. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 05:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. Is trustworthy and isn't going to bring down Meta. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] 19:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support.''' [[User:Mindspillage|Mindspillage]] [[User talk:Mindspillage|(spill yours?)]] 22:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' --[[User:Cspurrier|Cspurrier]] 22:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 22:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] 23:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Very good fellow. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[User:Esteffect|Esteffect]] 00:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
**You see... you are typically a good example. You may be a *great* person. You are voting here on the 28th of march. Your first edit on meta was on the 28th of march. Would you *ever* accept that anyone votes on your project the very same day they joined ? I do not think so. [[User:Anthere|Anthere]]
* '''Oppose''' [[User:Anthere|Anthere]] Sorry, but you have very few edits on meta for now. Which probably means you know very little the local community and the local rules. I would prefer that you get to know the place better before being an admin here. It seems more reasonable to me. [[User:Anthere|Anthere]] 12:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
**What local community? There isn't a coherent local community - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 17:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*** Are you suggesting the current rules for making someone a sysop do not suit you ? If so, please discuss them to have them changed. Now, I will explain you a little bit about meta history (since you do not know why the rules are as is). Once upon a time, the rule to get a sysop on meta was "if you are a sysop on any project, just ask, and you will be made sysop by Brion. Then, there was an editor, who was a young very nice guy, but also a very strange person. He wanted *power*. He wanted recognition and he was ready to do anything to get it. So, he wanted to be sysop on meta (strange idea of getting power, but well...). He made some very strange things and the last thing we wanted was him sysop here. So, he asked to be sysop on en.wiki. I think he was rejected. The method he used was consequently to be made sysop on a small project. Pretty easy. He went to a mostly dead wiki and asked to be made sysop on that wiki. No community, so sure enough, he was made sysop. This is how we do things on small projects. Then, he simply came here and asked to be made sysop. At this point, Maveric just made him so (much to the despair of most of the meta sysops I must say...). In the following weeks, we just followed him in each of his steps. We (the meta community) discussed what we could do (privately, on irc) to avoid that this *ever* happen again (in short, having someone made a sysop whilst no one trust him, just because of some stupid rules). And we came up with the current rules (which state 1) you must be a sysop on one project, 2) you must be a participant of meta and 3) you must be confirmed once a year). A year later, we have been painlessly be able to unsysop the guy thanks to these rules. Taxman probably is a good person. But he is not a meta editor (right, he is bordering the number of edits which allow to consider he is). If you just put in the trash the current rules, upon the reason that "there is no meta community", you force us to go back to the old model, where the opinion of the local editors just do not matter at all. Also, calling english wp editors to come here to vote in mass for your group of followers is not really nice to people here. It just look as if a whole mass of unknown person is trying to take over the place. But well, this, I can understand. What I *really* mean is that claiming that there is no community, so that local opinions are not to be taken into account is actually quite an insult to those who have been working for several months or years here. But in the end, I think those who will be made sysops here by dubious mean will either stick to the place and become good admins here... or they will get removed in a year from now. [[User:Anthere|Anthere]] 21:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
****I agree, and that's why people's history of contributions should be reviewed. Also I hope you're talking in general about calling up masses of wp editors as I certainly have done nothing of the sort. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 23:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
****That's a very long answer to a question I didn't ask at all, in any way, shape or form. I asked quite specifically, "What local community?" There isn't one. We discussed this on IRC, and you said there is one but they actually do their work on IRC and mailing lists rather than on the wiki. That isn't a wiki community. I suppose this comes down to "people who want Meta to be a good work wiki" versus "people who want to guard the museum of historic texts". The trouble is that the second function is visibly hampering the first - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 11:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*****I answered on the Foundation list. If you wish so, I can copy my answer here. But it might really mess up the page :-) ~
* Support. Frankly, I agree with David Gerard - Meta has no local community. The requirement that someone have 100 edits is a relic from a time when people theorized that meta might someday have an active community (it doesn't). Taxman is one of the most trustworthy, dependable users on en, and I think it is ludicrious not to give him adminship based on the fact that his 98 edits is less than the minimum 100 required edits. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 23:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*** The very fact people react in group to the brutal deletion is "proof" there is a local community Raul ~~
**My heart does go out to this I'm just really spoofed after this group of people from en that may or may not understand meta policy. I mean, I agree that Taxman is one of the best en admins, but after the Linuxbeak situation I'm left pretty scared. I really want someone, for example, who will ask questions instead of me having to dig through their deletions. Also, sort of like the burearocrat (sp) situation on en I think we have more then enough great admins here to handle deletions and such (M7, etc.), and it becomes an actual burden rather then a help when we have good-hearted admins who may not know policy. Now, I hardly had that many edits myself at the time, so that really isn't why I am opposing and I realize I am walking a thin line here. Hopefully that makes sense. <small>[[User:RN|Just another star in the night]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 00:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
***I guess it comes down to whether Meta is a historical documents repository or an active work wiki to do things on. The problem, and the reason for [[WM:OM]] and all these people wanting useful powers to actually do stuff to effect it, is that the 'historical document repository' function is notably hampering the 'active work wiki' function - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 11:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
****Well it can do both. The Meta:Historical/Foo is a good idea to save all the old pages people have interest in but get them out of the way. They could easily be revived if needed. That or something similar should work. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 13:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Not much experience on Meta. [[User:Korg|Korg]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Korg|<font color="#FFD700">+</font>&nbsp;<sup><font color="#FF3333">+</font></sup>]] 02:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:Brian_New_Zealand|Brian]] <sup>[[n:User:Brian_New_Zealand|Wikinews]]'' / ''[[n:User_talk:Brian_New_Zealand|Talk]]'' </sup> 09:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Minimum criteria not met'''. The minimums are quite light; good candidates often exceed them many times over. On the other hand, Taxman has been around for a long time, and I would welcome another rfa next month. [[User:Sj|Sj]] 17:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
**And that criteria would be? I have over 100 edits. I had over 100 when I nominated myself, which I checked by paging through my edits in 20's. There were 6 on the last page before I nominated myself; yes I do check these things. But even moreso, this level of extreme editcountitis is simply astounding to me. Even if I only had 98 or whatever, focusing on that to the exclusion of my overall contributions amounts to little to no consideration of what would be best for the project, or Wikimedia in general. And yes saying anything in response will apparently reflect poorly on me and doom any chances of this succeeding even if there were any. That's fine because my commitment to our project does not hinge on the success of this in the least. I would have hoped people would evaluate a candiate based on their proven ability to contribute good to what we are trying to accomplish. I know how to rollback and block for vandalism without the least bit of controversy folks. But clearly people would rather promote editors with a greater score on numerical metric than editors that have proven their commitment to the project over a significant timeframe. Under the criteria taking prominence here, I would likely have been more successful making several hundred throw away edits after just recently becoming an admin on a smaller project. Exaggerating a little, but not much. I think we should all take a minute to consider what is best for the project, and edit counts isn't it. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 05:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
** Honestly, your statement on the above has you appear as if you were a power-monger. I can't understand why you can think only 100 edits (precisely less than 100) are enough prove your involvement to meta, and recent affairs make us more carefully to examine editors' involvement than before. Like some folks on your overhaul team, an admin lacking understanding to the policy is something over nuisance. Aph.
***If that's how it appears, it's rather unfortunate. I was being sincere when I said my commitment to our project does not hinge on the success of this in the least. Apparently my mistake was assuming my record on other projects would be weighed more than edit count. Anyway, don't anyone feel any stress on my account there's lots more important work to be done. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' critera not met yet. Some months later, situaion will be changed. --[[User:Aphaia|Aphaia]] 06:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

=== [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] ===
As part of the [[Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta]], I volunteered to take care of the Media/Images that have been stored on Meta server since late 2002. However, from what I notice, there is a lot of media that is being unused or have better copies at the Commons (which I am an admin at). This is also an issue that I handle at English Wikipedia (where I was given adminship in August of 2005 with the vote of 98/2/0). I wish to bring my knowledge about images to Meta. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] 00:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Very good en admin, will do well here too. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 01:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''</s> ''(see below)''- sorry, you need 100 edits on meta to qualify; you have less than 50. Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] [[User talk:Flcelloguy|(A note?)]] 02:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
**I been tagging images with {{tl|delete}}, so that is why some of my contributions have been going away. Here is [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Zscout370&dbname=metawiki_p what I have according to Interoit's tool]. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] 03:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
***'''Neutral''' - while I'm eager to support (and would gladly support if the aforementioned rule wasn't in there), I'm worried that a "deleted" edit equals an "edit" - a slippery slope. Regardless, it looks like this RfA will pass, so my congrats beforehand, along with my full confidence in you. Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] [[User talk:Flcelloguy|(A note?)]] 22:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Needs to access and has plenty of edits. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] 03:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
*A vote is useless in this case. Zscout370 cannot be made admin because of the fact that the requirements are not met. My vote would be disregarded even if I support this candidacy. --[[User:Marbot|Marbot]] 18:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
**Look again at the edit counter. You will see that he has, as of this post, 549 deleted edits. He's marked a bunch of pages for deletion... he has enough edits. Besides, I know him from en. I'm a sysop here and a bureaucrat at en.wikipedia. Zscout is a sysop at en.wikipedia, and he is not going to bring down the place. In fact, him having a sysop flag will greatly benefit [[Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta]]. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] 19:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support.''' 22:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [[User:Mindspillage|Mindspillage]] [[User talk:Mindspillage|(spill yours?)]] 22:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Very good chap. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' --[[User:Cspurrier|Cspurrier]] 22:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' <small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 22:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:Esteffect|Esteffect]] 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
**Joined meta on the 28th of march
*'''Support''' yes --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc glasgow]] 12:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
** 15 edits on meta. All to user page and vote here.
:**(True, so discount the 'vote' if that's the rules - but being an admin with 10k+ edits on en.wiki perhaps entitles me to be a character witness)--[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc glasgow]] 18:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*{{support}} [[User:Jon Harald Søby|Jon]] [[User talk:Jon Harald Søby|Harald]] [[:no:Bruker:Jhs|Søby]] 18:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Not much experience on Meta. [[User:Korg|Korg]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Korg|<font color="#FFD700">+</font>&nbsp;<sup><font color="#FF3333">+</font></sup>]] 02:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:Brian_New_Zealand|Brian]] <sup>[[n:User:Brian_New_Zealand|Wikinews]]'' / ''[[n:User_talk:Brian_New_Zealand|Talk]]'' </sup> 09:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
* '''Minimum criteria not met'''. The criteria are not burdensome; please satisfy them and reapply in another month :-) [[User:Sj|Sj]] 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 18:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Precisely, that vote should be closed due to lack of eligibility in my opinion. --[[User:Aphaia|Aphaia]] 06:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
<!-- oldest, last: make your request at the top of this section. -->

== Requests for temporary sysophood==


== Sysop confirmation, April 2006 ==
See [[Meta:Administrators/confirm]]

==See also==
* [[Stewards]]
* [[Requests for permissions]]
* [[Meta:Administrators]], a list of all meta-administrators
* [[Meta:Bureaucrat log]]
* [[Meta:Requests for adminship/Archive2|Archive of recently created admins]]


[[Category:Meta-Wiki_requests]]
[[Category:Meta-Wiki_administrators]]

Latest revision as of 06:01, 10 May 2024

Shortcut:
WM:RFA
This page hosts requests for administrator access on the Meta-Wiki; for requesting administrator access on any other wiki, please find the appropriate venue on the index of request and proposal pages. Bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight and bot requests are also made here. Before making a request here, please see the administrator policy.

Most requests should be listed here for at least seven days; bureaucrats should only close after the minimum time foreseen in the relevant policy. Discussions are not closed early. Adminship will be granted by a support ratio of at least 75%. If a request hasn't been addressed by a bureaucrat after a lengthy period of time, please leave a note at Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. Requests may be extended, or put on hold by bureaucrats, pending decision or finding of consensus.

Requests for temporary adminship and bot requests may be less formal and often go for a shorter duration if consensus becomes clear after only a few days of discussion.

All editors with an account on Meta, at least one active account on any Wikimedia project, and a link between the two, may participate in any request and give their opinion of the candidate. However, more active Meta editors' opinions may be given additional weight in controversial cases.

See below for information on prerequisites on submitting a request, and how to add a nomination.

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Participate:

This box: view · talk · edit

Information

Note that this page is for access on Meta only. See the permission request to stewards page for adminship/deadminship requests on other projects.

Regular adminship

  1. Before requesting admin access, please check the policy for requesting adminship.
  2. Use the box below, insert your username:

  3. Place a request on this page, by transcluding the subpage, for example {{Meta:Requests for adminship/Username}}. Please put the newest request on the top. Bear in mind that even if you do meet the criteria above this does not mean that the community will automatically approve a request.
  4. Please note, past administrators who have given up their rights must meet all criteria at the time of the new request. There is no separate process for reinstating past administrators.

Please note: Ill-considered nominations for adminship can be draining and deflating to both the community and the candidate. Any successful candidate will need to be able to demonstrate sufficient experience within the Wikimedia community, in addition to a familiarity with Meta-Wiki. If a candidate is not already a local administrator or holder of advanced permissions on a Wikimedia content project, they are less likely to pass a request for adminship here at Meta-Wiki.

Bureaucratship

Add your request below under the bureaucratship section. Please note:

  • Only active administrators can become bureaucrats, and only after at least 6 months of regular adminship.
  • User is endorsed by two current bureaucrats after they nominate themselves here.

If you fail any of these requirements, you will not be assigned the bureaucrat flag. For more information see Meta bureaucrat page.

Other access

For these types of access, create a subpage just as you would for regular adminship and add it to the appropriate section of this page.


  • Limited adminship: If you need sysop access for a particular reason (such as ability to edit protected pages), you may request limited adminship on Meta. If granted, the user understands that they will only be allowed to use the tools for the tasks they were approved, and not doing so will be grounds for immediate removal. Temporary sysop access will normally be valid for one month unless requested and granted otherwise.


  • CheckUser: please read the CheckUser policy and add your request below under the checkuser section, in the same way as an admin request.

  • Oversight: please read the Oversight policy and add your request below under the oversight section, in the same way as an admin request.



For these types of access, just ask on Meta request for help from a sysop or bureaucrat page:

Requests for global renamer permissions are handled at global permission requests to stewards page.

WMF Office Staff and Contractors

  • If you are an WMF Official or Contractor and need rights on Meta-Wiki to perform your duties the process is different. Please have a look at the WMF staff userrights policy on Office wiki[restricted access] and follow the procedure described there. If in doubt, please contact Trust and Safety; or send an email to ca@wikimedia.org.(source)

Requests for regular adminship

None currently

Requests for limited adminship

None currently

Requests for interface adminship

Please see Meta:Interface administrators before applying. Regular administrators may apply directly at Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.
None currently

Requests for bureaucratship

None currently

Requests for CheckUser access

"Meta:Requests for checkuser" redirects here. To request checkuser information, see Meta:Requests for CheckUser information.
None currently

Requests for Oversight access

"Meta:Requests for oversight" redirects here. To request oversighting, see Meta:Oversighters#Requests.
None currently

Requests for translation adminship

None currently

Requests for CentralNotice adminship

None currently

Requests for bot flags

None currently

See also

Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=26749295"