Hello all, I'm Ajraddatz. After some thought on this, I've decided to nominate myself for sysop rights here so that I am able to delete pages and block vandals myself, rather than needing to request the help of an admin or tag for deletion. I've been active on meta for a year now, and have been consistently active in sysop-related areas since then. If you want to see how I'd use sysop tools, see my contribs and deleted contribs.
I meet the requirements for sysop on meta, as I am an admin on mediawiki.org (logs) and a global sysop (logs - stats).
I know that there are going to be people here who are opposing per my lack of admin experience on larger projects with very high bars for adminship. I am not very active on any large projects - the majority of the work I do on Wikimedia is global stuff, and meta is really the wiki that I'm most active on. As such, why would I go to another wiki to request adminship, when the only place I actually have a use for the tools is here? That's why I'm requesting it here, and I'd appreciate it if you judged me based on my contributions here, rather than my lack of flag collecting elsewhere. Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The requirements are crystal clear, "Be an administrator, bureaucrat, or checkuser on a local Wikipedia or related content project." Whether you are even eligible to have an RFA turns on whether MediaWiki-wiki is a content project or not, and, ultimately, I think it is not. You don't have to have admin experience on a large (enwp, dewp, commons, etc.) project, just some content project. Further, I am rather turned off by a nomination that acknowledges the rules as they are written, and then asks people to disregard them. Courcelles 05:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
comment' I agree with Courcelles, content wiki sysop must be sought prior to meta adminship. I can see the candidates need to sysop on meta, but am uncomfortable with rule bending. fr33kman 14:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I'm not saying that people shouldn't acknowledge the rules - mediawiki.org is just as much a content wiki as Wikiversity or Wikibooks. The entire point of the content wiki adminship was, or so I though, so that there could be some community evaluation of the user's use of sysop tools after getting them. Considering that mediawiki.org is more active than quite a lot of "content" wikis, I'd say that this requirement is met. In no way am I trying to bend the rules here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
To expand on what I mean when I say that mediawiki.org is a content project. We define projects as content or not content by their scopes, rights? Let's compare the scope of mediawiki.org to some other content and non-content projects:
Wikiversity "The Wikiversity community aims to further the discovery and distribution of knowledge in a very natural way, by helping people to learn and to share learning resources." This is directly comparable to mediawiki.org's scope of providing documentation and assistance for using the MediaWiki software. Wikiversity is a collaborative learning tool for broad topics, mediawiki.org is a more specific collaborative learning tool for the specific topic of the MediaWiki software.
Wikibooks "Wikibooks is a Wikimedia project for collaboratively writing open-content textbooks". Again, this is directly comparable to mediawiki.org's scope of providing documentation for the MediaWiki software. Also, it should be noted that both have content which is created by the editors.
Wikimedia Commons "Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to everyone". This is comparable to mediawiki.org's scope of providing free access to information about the MediaWiki software, also in the public domain.
Outreach Wiki "It's a bookshelf, a collection of best practices, and a coordination point for any activity that is directed to the public, to cultural institutions or to universities". This is not comparable to mediawiki.org's scope, as mediawiki.org is not an idea wiki, but rather a documentation and support wiki.
Strategy Wiki "Strategic planning essentially answers the questions, "Where are we now?", "Where should we go?", and "How do we get there?"". This is also not comparable to mediawiki.org's scope. Mediawiki.org's goal is not to strategize about the usage or future of MediaWiki software, but rather to provide documentation. To quote mediawiki.org's scope, "MediaWiki.org is solely for the documentation of the MediaWiki software."
Test Wikipedia "This is a website for the developers of Wikimedia wikis (that means a number of well-known wikis, including those below) to test their latest coding." To directly quote mediawiki.org's scope, "It is also not meant to be used as a test wiki". These are definitely not related.
So, upon comparing the scope of mediawiki.org to those of other obviously content and non-content wikis, it seems pretty clear where mediawiki.org fits in - as a content wiki. On top of all of that, it has an active community, meaning that all actions taken by admins are subject to local scrutiny. I would also like to say one more thing: It is not my intent to bend the rules, or break them. If I pass this RfA, a responsibility of an admin is to follow community consensus. However, it is pretty obvious that mediawiki.org can be qualified as a content wiki, and as such I am eligible for adminship here. What I meant with the last paragraph of my nomination statement is not that I should be exempt from the rules, but rather that since I'm requesting adminship on meta, there should be a focus on my actions on meta rather than my lack of a sysop flag on a large content project like enwiki or commons. Thanks for reading. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
You're trying to move the goalposts, though. What is and what is not a "content project" is already defined, see the breakdown on Wikimedia projects, which clearly puts MediaWikiwiki as a backstage project, not a content one. Courcelles 20:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
That also wasn't my intention - I didn't know that Wikimedia defined them that way. It should be noted, however, that per this poll which defined the rules for RfAs here global sysops are also "marginally" able to apply, more of a case by case basis. So, if there is a concern with me misusing sysop tools, please bring it up, but otherwise I think that this request should be able to stand. Also, if you look at the non-content section of the poll, you'll see that the examples given are wikis like outreach, testwikipedia, strategy - I've written a massive text wall above which pretty well explains why mediawiki.org doesn't fit into that group.
Beyond that, this is really frustrating. I'm applying for adminship here because I want to be able to better help out. I don't think that the rules were made with the expressed intent of preventing a good candidate from becoming an admin, but rather to be able to immediately close applications of flag collectors or otherwise completely unqualified people. I don't consider adminship to be a trophy, I consider it to be a toolkit, and I think that I can be trusted with access to it. I hope so, anyways, considering I already have access to it on over 300 other Wikimedia wikis. Sorry for being so argumentative, it's just really frustrating to be told that I shouldn't even be allowed to apply, not because I'm not trusted with the tools, but solely because I'm not an admin on what you consider to be a content project. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Mediawikiwiki is not the same as a more publically known project such as the large and medium content wikis. Meta is unique because it spans the world between the type of wiki mediwikiwiki is the content wikis. Admins here on meta are constantly being asked to fix a problem or abitrate a problem on some content wiki somewhere. We are also a place where less experienced admins from elsewhere can come to get advice or help. Both of these activites take place every day and require an above average knowledge of global state of WMF (lots of places do things their own way to an extent) and also requires a very good understanding of the tools available to an admin. Being an admin on meta requires good experience because of issues like this. Sorry, trusted and liked but just not experienced. fr33kman 22:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's really ridiculous. Meta admins are not called upon to arbitrate problems on other wikis, and to say that is something that I would consider to be untrue. Perhaps that lies within what a steward's day looks like, but I have been active here for a year now and never seen a local admin being asked to look into a problem on a wiki in their capacity as an admin on meta. Even if meta admins are called upon on a day-to-day basis to solve problems on other wikis, that isn't an area which I have any intention of being active in. I have a "good understanding of the tools avaliable to an admin"; I have two years of sysop experience on large wikis on Wikia, and five months of experience as a global sysop. As I said above, I'm sorry for arguing with opposers (not something that I usually do or condone), but I do not understand your meaning for some of the points that I've addressed above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, how would being an admin of a content wiki possibly help in any of the areas that you mentioned (other than the stuff about being global arbitrators)? I'm a globally active user - I'd argue that I know more about the global state of WMF than most content wiki admins. I know all about the problems on ptwiki and the controversy involving the image filter and the bid to not enable it on wikisource projects (to name two examples off the top of my head). What average enwiki admin would know that? Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
You should know that arguing with people on an RfA rarely goes well. I remain opposed. fr33kman 00:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to change your stance, that is your choice. What I am asking is for you to clarify what you've said in response to my comment above. If you don't wish to do that, that is also fine, though I would appreciate it. Your choice. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Support: I'd say mediawiki.org is a content project. As I recall, Template:Sisterprojects is fairly arbitrary, and is based on aesthetics (both in symmetry and in word choice) rather than being based on anything legitimate.
I'd also say that rules regarding adminship here should be flexible. This is a meta-project. There's no real danger in having more admins; most of the current admins are useless. An injection of fresh blood is always good. The main criterion has to be "will this person do anything harmful?" I don't see any evidence that Ajraddatz will. If he's like everyone else, he'll hang around here for a month doing admin work and then find something more entertaining. Best case, he sticks around for a while helping out. Worst case, he gets his adminship removed for causing harm of some kind and we all move on—and this case seems fairly unlikely. I don't see any issue here. --MZMcBride 21:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Support - clearly has an adminship and global adminship (global admin = local admin on a lot of projects), which makes him eligible. When I was going through things to delete, I found Ajraddatz beat me to it with the same rationale. I was going to recommend he run but here we are. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Support - I think the same as WizardOfOz. Strikertalk 01:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Support Through being a admin on a content wiki is highly required, but since this user is a global sysop, i will support this RfA. EmailVaibhavTalk 10:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
En contra Nothing personal but per Courcelles. The mediawiki.org site is not a content project and policy is crystal clear on that. The poll cited above is not implemented and shouldn't be referred as policy (and two 'crats think GS and other things needs even repolling). However the requisite of being a sysop on a content project is prior to that poll. Very short of time actually (illness) so if there's discussion about this and I don't reply quickly hope that you can forgive me. —Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 13:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Barras) You're wrong. Policy was updated, per discussion, in 2008. The poll is from 2010/2011 and that requirement was re-ratified. Content-adminship is a must since very long time. And seeing how mediawikiwiki gives out sysop I'm not convinced, either. —Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 14:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Again, the entire point or so I thought of the content adminship was so that the user's use of the sysop tools could be evaluated. My RfA on mediawiki was open for two days, during which nobody brought up any concerns, and so it was closed as successful. After a month, I've received no complaints about my actions there, despite the fact that there is a local, active community who can review my actions. That shows trusts. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Per my opposes here, here and also here. My personal opinion and my vote doesn't have to follow a poll or something. Global sysops should be sysop on a content project before becoming gs, therefore, a gs would qualify for adminship on meta. You simply fail my criteria. Adminship on mediawiki and most other non-content projects is given out like candy, to trust people with access here, I want to see, that at least one local community trusts the person. -Barras 14:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I think if somebody ran for adminship here and was an admin on smalllanguagewithfivecommunitymembers.wikipedia.org, nobody would say a word. It isn't about meeting an arbitrary set of criteria; it's about whether the person requesting adminship can be trusted here and now. Please be logical and reasonable. --MZMcBride 00:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
yes actually MW-Wiki is a content wiki, I'd say. It's not a wikipedia, but it's a dedicated special content wiki about a software. --თოგო(D) 10:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Neutral I'm uncomfortable supporting after a very controversial GS request, then a local adminship request on mw-wiki with about 30 edits, and then using that as an argument for a meta RfA less than a month later. However, I won't oppose since I've seen you around on Meta and in crosswiki patrolling and my general impression is that you do good work and are unlikely to break anything. Good luck. General note: We should specify explicitly which projects count as "content projects" for the RfA criteria to prevent disputes like this. Of course, individual participants are free to apply stricter criteria than the minimum prerequisites specified by policy. Jafeluv 11:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Support while echoing the comments by MZMcBride. There's very little harm to be found in allowing a trusted user access to this particular tool set. And yes... he's a trusted user. --Philippe 17:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Support - As one of those useless admins Mr. McBride mentions above. Tiptoetytalk 02:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Support per Philippe. He's trusted, active, probably won't break anything... so why not? Grunny (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Withdrawn, as a sign of good faith to fr33kman. Please close this request as such. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I feel this is unnecessary, but it's up to you. I accept your apology. fr33kman 02:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.