Meta:Requests for adminship/Theo10011 2

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

Promoted (24/6/0) 80% - While this closure will be inevitably controversial, there is consensus to promote. When Theo10011 initiated this RfA the requirement for him to be an administrator on a content project was not in place, and there have been many other people promoted between when the poll was closed and now without the "new standards" being required of them. Theo10011 meets Meta's current requirements for promotion and has reached above the 75% required supports. That said, Theo10011 should take the issues brought forth in this RfA to heart and possibly attempt to work on more content related wikis and gain more cross-wiki experience. Tiptoety ^talk 04:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Theo10011

• Theo10011 (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)
• Scheduled to end at 20:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

Hi, I would like to request a meta Adminship. I withdrew my earlier RfA since I was not sure if I would have been able to help out, working as a member of the Fundraising team. Now, that the fundraiser is over I would like to renew my request. My primary intention is to use the sysop tools to edit Special:CentralNotice, along with general vandal fighting/maintenance related tasks whenever I can. Going ahead, I need access to central notice for India and developing geographies for the projects. I am a B-cat on Strategy Wiki, where I have experience with using the sysop tools. Thanks.

NOTE:I just wanted to clarify something, I am requesting sysop rights primarily to edit Protected pages namely Central Notice. I am not asking for an adminship as a badge. I am an Indian, and need access to Central Notice for geolocating banners for future events in India, I am not sure if there are other Indian admins on Meta who are familiar with Central Notice. I am located in an almost opposite time-zone, so I would be available at odd hours to help out which could be an asset but if anyone objects I would be happy to refrain from using Sysops tools beyond editing Central Notice.

Votes

• Support per last time. He's done some good work since; always a bonus! PeterSymonds 20:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - he has my confidence. --Philippe 20:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support No hesitations whatsoever. Steven Walling (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support per lack of evident concerns. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support, why not? - Hoo man (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Per good work he done after the first run. --WizardOfOz ^talk 21:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- Avi 21:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Daniel (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support no reason to oppose :) James (T C) 00:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Sure Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support mickit 09:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Sure. --Az1568 (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Aye. — Tanvir • 09:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Sure why not? –BruTe ^talk 10:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Holla. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose sorry for destroying the unanimosity, but I don't see enough experience (for example less than 4000 edits Wikimedia-wide) and I don't see any sysopship on a content wiki which I thought was the prerequisite for applying for permanent Meta sysopship. --თოგო ^(D) 11:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  The prerequisite is being a sysop on a "local Wikipedia or related project". Theo is a sysop on StrategyWiki, which surely is a related project, isn't it? Jafeluv 12:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  Please see this recent poll. Consensus was in favour of implementing that users requesting adminship here must be admins at a content project. I do not know why the instructions were not updated yet, on the other hand. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 14:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Personally per Thogo I'm afraid --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Dusti 19:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support I have read the oppose comments, and still think that we should use the old rules here, as the instructions had not been updated and there is no evidence that the candidate was aware of the discussion on that poll page; I know that I haven't returned to discussions for some months or ever before. Anyway, Theo is trustworthy, unlikely to break the wiki(s), the whole nine yards. NW (Talk) 14:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • They are aware - they voted on them. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Theo made the first vote, then didn't comment again. No evidence that he even remembered the discussion months later when he opened this RFA. NW (Talk) 01:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per my oppose here. Only pointing to this, because I opposed the user there for not being admin on a content project. My view to adminship hasn't changed since then, sorry. I can't support this request. -Barras 15:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support: This guy worked for Wikimedia for several months. I think he can be trusted to handle the awesome power of the spam blacklist and other tools hosted here at Meta-Wiki. --MZMcBride 16:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Content wiki sysopship is a must have for me. fr33kman 07:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Thogo Mardetanha ^talk 09:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose see above -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 15:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support--Sokac121 12:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Yes, Theo has my confidence. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Love his work. --H P Nadig 14:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Always good to work with - Dmgultekin 18:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Keegan 22:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment - If we see it as consensus, the request simply cannot be closed as successful. -Barras 17:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - From what I see, there was no clear consensus on having the policy changed, so this can continue and be closed as successful if there is clear consensus for a promotion. Dusti 18:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment IMO, this request has started with the old version, and should go on untill end. --WizardOfOz ^talk 18:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment As the user here voted in the poll I guess (s)he is well aware of the views of the community. If you exclude their vote in the poll only one user was actually in favour of allowing non content sysops admin rights here. While it has not been implemented it is fairly clear. As it is a "criteria for admin" here then even if successful the user would be de-admined as soon as the policy changed I imagine which would seem to make this rather strange. If folk no longer meet the criteria due to resigning other admins then they would cease to be admins here (IMO). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment As I've said here, if we use restrictive & literal interpretation of the policy, combined with the irretroactivity principle in case the policy changes during this RfA, we should be closing this using the old rules. I guess this will need a bureaucrat discussion but I'm just dropping my 2 cents. Regards, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 11:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Seems like no reason we couldn't consider his request to be running as an exception to the normal rule, and thus the opposes will remain valid and the support voters could be contacted to ask if they'd continue to support under the new condition? Would that satisfy everyone? Because otherwise it's dualing consensus -- you have a clear consensus to promote Theo, and a clear consensus that the rule should be construed such that he would not be eligible. It would seem to me, under the most logical standard of construction that the consensus that Theo in particular should be promoted supercedes a general rule about eligibility (specificity over generality is a common theme in statutory construction in the law, something that arguably has parallels to what we're doing here). I mean, lets try to find a solution here that helps the project, not excludes a conceivably great admin. Otherwise, you're going to have a large group of people who are saying "who cares about the content production, he's been trusted as a WMF contractor (in a similar job to several of us who were granted temporary admin, I should point out, for our staff roles -- I can't remember if Theo's staff account was or not). -- he's not going to harm the project" . And am I correct in understanding that when he applied, the instructions had not yet been updated yet to reflect the content-wiki requirement? If that's the case, there's no question -- the responsible thing is to follow the rules as they were written when he applied. You can't change the expectations midway on people like that. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)