Meta:Requests for adminship/Cato

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

Cato[edit]

Ends: 22:08 25 June 2008

I request adminship on Meta. I believe that this may be useful for my work on English Wikiquote, and I would also like to help with admin work on Meta.

I am an admin and checkuser on English Wikiquote [1], where I have over 2,700 edits. I have over 100 edits here. I have just edited my user page on WQ to confiirm my identity [2].--Cato 22:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please tell us why do you need this adminship--Mardetanha ^talk 22:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam blacklist mainly. Also, as a checkuser I would be able to help with cross-wiki vandalism.--Cato 23:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you done work on the BL here before? It may be worth a thought to do some work without the bit if not. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the basis of wanting to help on the blacklist I would oppose. As yet I can honestly not remember a single RfA where that was given as a reason & when the person had rarely or never editing the page, where any real work was done there. If you want to help with cross wiki spam - great, please do. There is work to do here & on en wp which would give great experience. When that is gained by you (or anyone else with the same rationale) it would be good to have additional help. People who work that page are rare but come to it with quite a bit of experience. Equally in dealing with cross wiki vandalism some real experience on SWMT & the like would be great first. In practice you haven't activated SUL yet (here) which would be almost essential in such a role nor are you active on many other wikis as yet if global issues are something you are interested in --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - with reflection I do not consider this user sufficiently experienced on Meta or active enough in the possible fields of work here such as SWMT or blacklist. Do the work & then come back here. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have managed to get SUL to work.--Cato 16:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per Herby, looking through your contributions, you just became really active about 4 days ago and basically no experience on spam blacklisting and though cross-wiki help is really needed, you see to lack experience in that field and plus your last 150 edits date back October 2007, so I wont classify you as an active editor, be around for atleast 6 to 8 weeks and try again :) ..--Comet styles 10:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Alex Pereira ^falaê 18:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I have not activated SUL; I have tried, but the system will not allow me to. This is because the primary account for Cato is not me. As for my experience here, I easily meet the stated criterion "You have at least 100 valid contributions on the Meta-Wiki". If editors think that someone who meets this criterion is not ready to become an admin, the criterion should be changed to Cometstyles' "be around for at least 6 to 8 weeks" or whatever Herbythyme suggests, so that candidates are not taken by surprise by such comments.--Cato 18:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You really must understand that with this and any other wiki the criteria are the minimum required. That you have them is fine - it does not mean that there is any reason to grant sysop rights because of it, again as with any other wiki. You might find after you worked here your view would be different. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I appreciate that they are a minimum. I am trying to find out what editors regard as sufficient experience. And as you know, Wikis do not normally specify anything precisely, as in "at least 100". Since Meta apparently does, I cannot be blamed for taking that at face value. Had I known that in fact editors do not consider over 100 contributions adequate, I'd have known where I was.--Cato 19:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The hundred edits requirement is archaic. I think it should be removed and candidates voted on their merits instead. But that's for another discussion. Majorly ^talk 21:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I found the user not suitable for this job yet. Huji 07:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? What standards do you have that differ from the published ones?--Cato 22:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Editors have to ask two questions: Does Cato meet the currently specified minimum standards required of Meta? Can Cato be trusted with the tools? To the first, the answer is clearly yes. To the second, I answer yes because Cato is a respected admin and checkuser on EN:WQ. Under the current rules, all else is irrelevant and I believe that the closing 'crat should disregard any comment that does not confine itself to these two questions. Maybe those who say that the minimum standards are wrong and should be changed are correct, and I have commented on the discussion on the talk page. However, we can't change the rules in the middle of an RfA! If the RfA succeeds, I would urge Cato (who is not active on EN:WP) not to get involved in the blacklist, but stick to activities on Meta.--Poetlister 11:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A user may have 100 edis simply welcoming users. They may well be trusted, but doesn't show their dedication or understanding of Meta. There are rules there, but they aren't the only ones. In practice, if you have barely any edits here, you won't pass adminship regardless of what the rules say. If I were to close this, I'd not ignore the opposes. Majorly ^talk 11:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree completely with Majorly (:)) - opposes are just that - opposes, they all cite some reason. There should be no question of ignoring them --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Respectfully I disagree with you Poetlister, in particular your argument "Under the current rules, all else is irrelevant". The rules only give the minimum requirements to be a candidate. It doesn't criteria which will make a given user a meta sysop automatically. --Aphaia 22:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not knowing what is expected of candidates in an RFA (in general terms) is a sign you're not ready. If you were active here and on your way to a successful RFA then you would know. As well, you have no contributions which point me to the conclusion that you need the tools. As such, I see no reason to give them to you. The tools are meant to be used. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 13:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean that I should not have believed the requirements on the RfA page? I am still trying to elicit what people expect over and above the published requirements.--Cato 22:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cato, it was written in the early 2004 or the late 2003, anyway before I got involved to meta. It was just a relics - then it was an idea to have some requirements, and it worked, since they had only one sole requirement to be an admin somewhere and found it could be easily phonied. Now we are living in 2008. The requirements which worked in good old days are just outdated, and if you are actively involved, you may have known about that. That is partly I agree with others you are not ready to be an admin here: you need to know a lot about meta culture and community how it works and what is its oral traditions. Not knowing meta culture could be a sign you are not ready since not every thing is written down. --Aphaia 22:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I would encourage you to become more familiar with policy, maintain your activity here, and consider requesting in a few months when you are more ready for this position. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with the comments the opposers are making, some additional experience and awareness of the "meta way" would be a good thing. But I also agree with the supporters when they point out that Cato has a track record of entirely satisfactory contributions on en:wq, and in fact is an elected checkuser there. Be of good cheer Cato, and consider trying again later when you've participated here more, if this does not pass. ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not now. I've valued greatly Cato's works on his home wiki, and am proud to be his colleague. However his involvement into meta is substantially from this month, and it hasn't been not in Meta administrative things including spam blacklist. I am not sure if he is ready to be an admin here. I sure Cato will convince the Meta community he'll add the value in months, with his more involvement. But meta community tradition have its community grant adminship to the users who are actually involved, not expected to be in a near future. --Aphaia 22:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Marbot 20:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering most people have voted oppose, may I ask why you voted support? Thank you. Majorly ^talk 22:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello Majorly, I am sorry for my late reply. Usually I do not come back to voting pages. I supported him because he fulfilled all criteria to be an admin here. Additionally I assumed good faith. However my voting behaviour may change due to the latest evolution of the criteria. Best regards --Marbot 12:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - largely per Aphaia. You've done some great work on enwq but haven't much Meta experience nor general interwiki work, from what I can see. Please do stay around and get some more mileage in and I'll likely support in a short while - Alison ^❤ 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, no consensus to promote at this time. Nakon 23:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]