Meta:Requests for adminship

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from RFA)
Jump to: navigation, search
←Requests and proposals Requests for adminship Archives→
Shortcut:
WM:RFA
This page hosts requests for requesting administrator access on the Meta-Wiki; for requesting administrator access on any other wiki, please see the index of request and proposal pages, where a Steward can do the job if required. Bureaucrat, checkuser and bot requests are also made here. Before making a request here, please see the administrator policy.

Requests should be listed here for at least seven days; bureaucrats should only close after this minimum time. 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

Contents

Information

Note that this page is for access on Meta only. See the Steward requests/Permissions page for adminship/deadminship requests on other projects.

Regular adminship

  1. Before requesting admin access, please ensure you meet all of the minimum criteria:
    • Be an administrator, bureaucrat or checkuser on a local Wikipedia or related content project.
    • Have a user page on Meta, with links to the user pages on other participated projects. This can state that SUL is activated or be provided via a Wiki matrix if that is not possible.
    • Have a valid contact address (either a confirmed email address in preferences, or a valid email address on the user page).
    • Be a currently active contributor on Meta. This is a subjective, not an objective, measure and there is no official post count.
  2. As Meta has a cross-wiki role, admins here are expected to have cross wiki experience. SUL confirmation or a matrix will ensure that editing on other wikis can be easily seen. It would be expected that those seeking adminship here would have both reasonable experience here and on other wikis.
  3. Given the multi-lingual nature of Meta, {{#babel:}} information will be of use to others.
  4. Place a request on this page, by transcluding a subpage, for example {{Meta:Requests for adminship/Example}}. 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. Please add a minimum ending date to the election, allowing a full 7 day period from the first timestamp: 
    ''Ending {{subst:#time:j F Y H:i|+1 week}} UTC''

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 he/she nominates themselves here

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

Other access

  • Temporary adminship: If you need temporary sysop access for a particular reason (such as ability to edit protected pages), you may request temporary adminship on meta. In this case, adminship shall be granted with no requirements and approval, but the user will promise to limit their activity to the necessity of what they asked for. Temporary sysop access will normally be valid for one month.
  • Bot: Please read the bot policy. This wiki allows global bots and automatic approval of certain types of bots; for other bots, add your request below under the bot section, in the same way as an admin request.
  • 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.
  • Translation administrator: please read Meta:Translation administrator and Meta:Translate extension. No fixed time limit for these requests is defined, and there are no particular requirements; if you provide a valid reason your request will be granted.

Requests for regular adminship

None currently

Requests for temporary adminship

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.

Quentinv57

Hello everybody. I'm requesting today the local CheckUser status at meta, because I'm more and more implicated in spammers / spambots affairs (most of them are on meta, en* projects and mediawiki) and I always prefer to check the new series before locking, to be sure that it's part of our spambot and that I'm not going to lock an innocent.

Moreover, I've seen Snowolf saying one month ago that "we need active CUs, present on IRC when needed for quick checks". As I'm most of the time available at IRC, I think that it could help when none of the current checkusers using IRC are connected and a quick check is needed.

Thanks for your consideration. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Votes

  1. My statement was not very well worded, I meant to imply that if there's any need, it's for active CU, tho meta might be well covered by CU already. In any case, while there might be no immediate need, I also never feel there's "too many CUs" pretty much, so I'm going with a support here. Snowolf How can I help? 15:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  2. Oppose weak oppose Don't get me wrong, I certainly like you, but to be honest I don't think we need more meta CUs. Moreover we already have a lot of spam/proxy experts on meta who have CU rights and we have enough active CUs (both on IRC and on CU-L). Besides it's just a few days since you're back after a long break and personally I don't think you're the "right guy" to have CU rights here. I do trust you btw - that's not an issue here - and I appreciate all the work you do as a steward and otherwise. Trijnsteltalk 15:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support weak support Despite agreeing with Trijnstel in some ways, I still think you are trustworthy enough to have the right--Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support. I don't see how having more active, trusted users with this flag would cause any harm. Seems to me that it could only possibly help speed up reactions to some situations, and that makes it worth having more. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Oppose. Sorry but there's absolutely no need for more CheckUsers at meta. CU is not just about fastness, is about using it when there's a need to use it. In the most urgent cases —and after some years as CU here I've only seen a couple— a steward can simply run a check here. The world isn't going to stop for that. Regards. —Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 21:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support Support I see no problem in having one extra CU. Trusted user. --Meno25 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support Support I see no problem too. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 07:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support Support Why yes? Because he's trusted and good user. -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support Support per Snowolf and Meno25. Quentin is an active and trusted user and I don't see why I shouldn't support him. micki 16:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support Aye. No doubt Quentin is trusted and also more than capable to do the job here. More CU does not harm. Sure he was busy in real life for only some time, but he was very active before that and even now, he is one of the most active stewards around. Therefore he has my absolute support. — T. 10:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support Support, trusted, doesn't harm, so why not? - Hoo man (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 11:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  13. Oppose weak oppose I've thought about this quite a bit and in the end I do not agree that we might create an unlimited number of CUs on a project simply because someone wanted the rights. This project is adequately covered with CUs at present and almost all of them are regularly active - I doubt there would be much in the way of delays for requests if any. I must stress this is not about my trust of this user nor does it diminish my appreciation for the excellent work they do as a steward. --Herby talk thyme 15:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support strong support Why not? He is serious.--Morphypnos (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - Usually I'm one of the people who vote early, however this here wasn't that easy to decide. We are currently pretty good covered with CUs on meta. I also have to agree with what Trijnstel said above, you just came back from a break. In my opinion, it is never a good idea to ask for more rights just after a break. Most of the time, CU requests to us are pretty quick done and I can't think of any big delay, and even then, if it is absolutely needed, a steward could run a check here as well. We surely won't kill them for that. At this point, I will go with an oppose here. -Barras talk 12:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  16. Mild support and very mild, while I'm happy to mint admins and crats as qualified people ask, minting CU's, IMO, should only be done if there is a need for them, and I can't see there actually is mich now. That said, nothing at all against the candidate, and as he's already a steward, an appointment here is largely harmless, as he already has access to checkuser-l and the wiki. On balance, I wouldn't have encouraged anyone to ask for CU rights on Meta now, but since we're here, can't bring myself to oppose. Courcelles 05:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Requests for Oversight access

None currently

Requests for translation adminship

None currently

Requests for bot flags

None currently

See also

Requests for: permissions (global) — bot status — CheckUser information (local) — deletion (speedy deletions: local | multilingual) — translation — logos — URL blacklisting — username changes (local) — SUL problem solving — new languages — adminship on Meta — comments — interwiki map — an account on WMF wiki — help from a Meta sysop or bureaucrat

Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=3785937"
Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Beyond the Web
Print/export
Toolbox