Meta:Requests for adminship/Fr33kman

Fr33kman

• Fr33kman (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Discussion to end at or after 20:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Hi all! I want to propose Fr33kman for an admin here. He's one of the newly elected stewards here. As a steward who then checks meta fairly frequently it is sometimes hard to just tag vandalism instead of simply delete it. I think Fr33kman would do well as an admin here. There is always some work that needs to be done and he is surely trustworthy enough to have the local admin flag as a steward. Good luck! -Barras 20:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I accept Barras' nomination and as always will always do my best for WMF, meta and all of its users. fr33kman 20:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Support -Barras 20:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, of course. Jafeluv 20:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support mickit 20:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• ' Support' Memo18^{(contribs|talk|ro.wp(t))} 21:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Aude 01:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support --M/ 01:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Trusted. --Bsadowski1 02:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• I really think we should just codify the standard that all stewards become local sysops, so naturally  Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • see below fr33kman 03:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support and fully support Juliancolton's statement. Processing it this way makes it separate and ongoing, rather than tied with stewardship (not that it is a problem). If they are a steward it should be automagically assigned. billinghurst sDrewth 06:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • see below fr33kman 03:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support No reason to oppose, and I agree with Juliancolton. –BruTe ^talk 07:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. PeterSymonds 09:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, trusted. I think I said this once, but I would like to see all stewards being given admin in meta to make them local sysops officially. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, why not - Hoo man (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Trijnstel 13:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Absolutely. Grunny (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- Maximillion Pegasus 03:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Theo10011 05:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --თოგო ^(D) 11:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Fr33kman often helps people out, can't see the reason why not. Hydriz 13:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support We need really to discuss this. IMO meta admins should be included for stewards as long they hold the tools. --WizardOfOz ^talk 16:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Tempodivalse [talk] 19:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. ThiagoRuiz 21:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support I have no problems with stewards having sysop access for the duration of their stewardship. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support, of course. Alex Pereira ^falaê 18:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• sonia 23:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Well if anyone wishes to read it, WM:MSR#Administrative actions on Meta exists and says that stewards are admins and crats on meta for the duration of their term, but should only do routine things if "active on meta" or else uncontroversial, such as deletions, name changes etc... It needs rewording or enacting. Barras and I spoke about it and he was of the opinion that a non-admin/crat steward should do nothing admin/crat needing on meta itself. Discuss :) fr33kman 03:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The original intent was that stewards were welcome to perform actions (using the global admin/bureaucrat rights) as if they had the appropriate local rights, primarily so that they would be more integrated into the regular work at Meta (involving them in more "global" work than is normally associated with merely having steward rights) and that issues needing attention from those with the rights would not go uncorrected (such as cleaning up vandalism, etc...) They are, of course, still welcome to run for administrator if they wish to be even more active locally, though! Initial MSR author's opinion. Kylu 14:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    • My point with MSR is that the admin/crat thing is awkwardly worded because a steward (non-admin/non-crat) who was an active member of meta should just feel free to act as as an admin and crat, according to that wording. The question then becomes one of definition of active; something the global sysops, SWMT, stewards and smallwikis are debating all the time. ;) fr33kman 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
      • In my opinion, a steward (non-admin/non-crat) should only use the buttons here if it is really really urgent and if no normal local admin is around. Meta has plenty of admins and crats. Any steward who wants to perform local actions should either request the local flag or just make all stewards local admins here. -Barras 10:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
        • That's exactly what we were trying to avoid: temp-flagging a bunch of stewards as admins, when they already have the ability, when those rights depend on the continued carrying of the steward rights, and adding a flag that actually changes nothing for the stewards technically. Instead, they could follow MSR and just do things that are obvious and need to be done (reverting/blocking vandals, for instance). I'm certainly not opposing Fr33kman's adminship (I support it, actually), but if MSR is awkwardly worded...fix it, please, don't route around it as if it were irreparable damage. Kylu 16:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I never intended to indicate that MSR was intended as a walkaround, merely that I'd pedantic and saw myself as a regular of meta-ish, a steward and so also a crat and sysop. I didn't "feel" this was what was intended so arose the question with PeterSymonds and Barras. Hence this RFA. I don't think I should fix the worsing cause I'm new to meta. :) fr33kman 22:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)