Meta:Requests for adminship

From Meta

(Redirected from Requests for adminship)
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.

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.
[edit] Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Contents

[edit] Information

[edit] 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 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).
    • Are currently an 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 mean 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, {{user language}} 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.

[edit] Bureaucratship

Add your request below under the bureaucratship section. Please note:

  • only active administrators can become bureaucrats, and only after 6 months of regular adminship
  • User is endorsed by two current bureaucrats after he/she nominates themselves here

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

[edit] 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 and 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.

[edit] Requests for regular adminship

None currently.

[edit] Requests for temporary adminship

none currently.

[edit] Requests for bureaucratship

none currently.

[edit] Requests for CheckUser access

none currently.

[edit] Requests for Oversight access

[edit] Nakon

I am requesting access to the Oversight permission on Meta. I am an active administrator and bureaucrat here (9th overall) and I meet the Foundation's requirements for access. As of now, there are zero users with oversight on Meta, aside from stewards. Thanks for your consideration, Nakon 15:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Support but it's necessary oversight in meta? --.snoopy. 07:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support trustworthy user, and, everytime I've ever needed to get ahold of Nakon on IRC, I've had no problems doing so. SQLQuery me! 21:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support leaning toward neutral, only because I don't believe there's a need for local oversight on Meta. However, lodging a record of my support because I believe that Nakon is trustworthy enough to merit the rights if we do decide there's a need for oversight at some point in the future. Cary Bass demandez 14:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support per cary --Mardetanha talk 15:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support trusted, --Kiensvay 10:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support, agree with Cary that Nakon is trusted, and I think local access is beneficial here. Cirt 19:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Provisional Support. Provided that stewards continue to check the oversight logs for cross checking and accountability until a second oversighter can be elected. I trust this user, and it is my personal belief that each local project (and in the sense that for the purposes of oversight and checkuser, I'll consider meta a local on in this context only, meta is actually projects coordination). NonvocalScream 03:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Oppose Interaction with this user has been more than unsatisfactory I'm afraid. While this was in connection with the Blacklist the indifference to following the wishes of the community were too extreme for me to support an extension of rights to a sensitive area. --Herby talk thyme 15:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    I do agree that I acted rather poorly with that incident and I apologize for any problems I may have caused. I was used to logging entries one way and didn't understand that the new process did make things easier for the removal requests. I have been following the new format with my recent entries. Nakon 15:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    Unless I am missing something I see no link to your user talk archive? --Herby talk thyme 15:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    I cleared it out but forgot to move it to an archive, it's available here Nakon 16:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - well my only reason for oppose is though Nakon is an active user, he hardly ever interacts with anyone both on wiki and IRC and is very hard to communicate with and he is very unresponsive as well...--Cometstyles 21:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Herby. Communication is severely lacking, and I have concerns regarding unilateral actions given Nakon's atrocious behaviour - when there is a private log as with Oversight, that is a Bad Idea. Frankly, I'm surprised this nomination page exists right now, given the level of trust needed for this.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Herby and Cometstyles. --Thogo (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. On reflection I do not think there is much benefit to having local oversight on meta and that it could in fact be detrimental. At the moment we have over 30 stewards who could oversight edits here, and stewards regularly look in on meta. Creating a local oversight group will lead to stewards deferring to the locally appointed users, significantly reducing the pool of people willing to perform these actions. It seems to me the waiting time for oversight is more likely to increase than decrease (and no evidence has been provided that the volume of requests is such the stewards cannot handle them). I would rather the steward team continued to provide oversight cover for meta. WjBscribe 03:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The original idea of ours was to allow stewards to continue performing checkuser and oversight on Meta as they have been, but to add our own active local representatives to handle day-to-day issues in addition. Kylu 04:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
      • We would need to get that written into our policy and have a consensus for it. Default is that once there are locals, Stewards would defer to them, except in emergencies... at least that's my interpretation, I'm going to float this past the other stewards. The upside of locals is that they would be able to easily look at the log, of course. ++Lar: t/c 11:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. oppose per Herby, I even wanted to vote for his removal in the admin confirmation because of this and few other things, but lately he seems to do better as admin. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 06:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose --Marbot 19:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC) neither steward nor checkuser

[edit] Neutral

{{neutral}} - I have to say I'm unpersuaded that there's a need for local oversighters on meta. Given the number of stewards who regularly check in here, I would have thought they would be more than able to handle any need for that particular tool. Has there been any recent discussion I have missed about the need for oversight on meta? Also, are there any statistics available as to how many oversight actions are performed on meta per month? That would be useful in helping me make up my mind... WjBscribe 23:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I've done some oversighting here as a Steward. My impression (no, I don't at this time have stats, sorry, just my impression) is that the need is still small (say, compared to en:wp) but regrettably on the increase. I'd rather we had elected Oversighters here, I think, which is why I decided to accept the nomination. ++Lar: t/c 02:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  1.  Neodrach - while I trust this candidate and they are amazingly hard-working, I believe some of the opposes above have valid points having taken a look. However, not nearly enough concern to oppose at this time - Alison ❤ 08:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Per Alison --Fabexplosive The archive man 08:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lar

Given there has been some desire to have locally-elected oversighters for Meta, there were a few names that came to mind, but Lar is easily my pick out of the lot.

Meta regulars are sure to recognize the username already, but for those who aren't familiar with this Wikimedian, some past nominations to review if you like: Wikisource admin, Meta admin, Meta RFCU, Meta RFB, Commons RFO, Commons RFCU, Steward. He also has OTRS access.

Lar is highly trusted on many wikis, already has experience with oversight at Commons and as a steward. Perhaps this nomination hasn't done Lar justice, but given the level of community trust shown in the past I feel little need to harp on the characteristics which qualify him for these tools, as they are readily evident.

 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Mike. I've done some oversighting here already, and have been thinking about what a shame it is that it seems we do need regular oversighters here... so I am honored by the nomination, and I accept. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Support as nominator, I should say. I'm confident Lar is capable of handling the tools he has & I'm equally confident he'd relinquish those he's not, if that situation arose. I trust Lar to both use the tools well as he has in the past and to hand them back as appropriate. My experiences with Lar's CU and admin work has been excellent, though I'm not privy to any oversight stuff.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support Frankly, he's got the trust (he's already a steward), the tools (same), and the job (He performs oversights on Meta already, but as a steward). This would simply make him our choice versus being one given by the greater Wikimedia community. Kylu 05:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support. He is calm, competent & an able communicator. He is experienced with the tools & active. There are few that I would trust more than Larry. --Herby talk thyme 06:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support but it's necessary oversight in meta? --.snoopy. 07:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support Lar has experiences with the tools and is certainly a good candidate. --Thogo (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, I know, but are necessary 4 oversights in meta? there are a lots of requests to hide revision? I trust in Lar and in all the candidate, but my question is another :-) --.snoopy. 12:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    Any wiki has to have at least 2, or none. I think one of these 4 is very clearly already not going to succeed. Two are currently iffy, and one is on track to pass (This is a very early days rash prediction, mind you!!! ... and all that could change, of course). If only one passes, meta will have no elected oversighters, and stewards will continue to handle requests as needed. Perhaps another candidate is needed? Perhaps we're actually better off WITH stewards handling requests? There are more stewards than we'll ever elect here as oversighters, for sure, and thus, better coverage. As I said, I've run in the past to make sure that the "2" requirement was met, so I don't have a lot invested here, but I am happy to serve and if elected will do my level best to execute the office satisfactorily. ++Lar: t/c 13:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support Lar already has the tools on Commons. That beeing said, I see no trust issue with Lar having the tools here.--Kanonkas 11:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Meta is probably the only wiki where trust is secondary to activity levels...--Cometstyles 13:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Mmm, well it certainly is a wiki where you believe trust is secondary to activity levels. However, I'm not convinced that you have yet persuaded enough people of this that you can simply declare it so. I think a lot of people here still disagree... WjBscribe 23:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I see no harm in trustworthy people taking on more work even if they aren't able to do all of it all the time. We trust them to not screw up when they do help out. That's my opinion anyway. —Giggy 05:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support He's already a steward and does this stuff elsewhere that has higher traffic. MBisanz talk 01:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support I think we can trust lar here. Kwsn01:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. Lar has my 110% trust. —Giggy 05:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  10. samþykkt, he is trusted, but as snoopy, I don't see much need for oversight on meta, however, if people think its needed, let them do it, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support from neutral, per this. I think it is admirable that Lar plans to keep to his word now that his promise becomes relevant, and these are qualities I would like to see in an oversight, as it happens. An irony it be. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support John Vandenberg 00:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support Lar's need for this right lead to this set of discussion. He is on meta often; He will serve well as a second; and having this right directly would actually reduce Lar's work, for then he would not need to use his steward tools. Hillgentleman 00:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support A very reliable steward, so there is no sense not to give to him this permission locally, here. --Millosh 12:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support He is eligible to do it --Mardetanha talk 15:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support No doubt. --Obersachse 20:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support Between activity and trust, I favor trust, which is damn-near synonymous with Lar in my dictionary. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support - I supported him from the first place. I just wanted to wait for him to accept this nomination, before adding my vote here. Huji 10:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support No doubt. --Kiensvay 10:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support, agree with Kylu. Cirt 19:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  21. Provisional Support. Provided that stewards continue to check the oversight logs for cross checking and accountability until a second oversighter can be elected. I trust this user, and it is my personal belief that each local project (and in the sense that for the purposes of oversight and checkuser, I'll consider meta a local on in this context only, meta is actually projects coordination). note: that I have interacted with Lar via email before and he has historically been able to respond with a quickness. NonvocalScream 04:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  22. Tacaíocht - per activity and trustworthiness. Works really hard as a steward and has a good eye on policy and how it applies - Alison ❤ 08:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support--Marbot 19:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support, a great user who will not use the tools for evil (if you will). WBOSITG 21:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support Maxim(talk) 00:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support Sure --Fabexplosive The archive man 08:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Oppose - probably on the basis that we actually need oversighters who are actually active for atleast 12 hours a day and probably always on IRC because with oversight, you really can't request it on usertalk pages of an oversighter that you need something oversighted and mailing an oversighter will also depend on how frequently he/she checks their mail and IRC is probably the quickest way, all the other candidates are IRC regulars, which is good, but can you be also...?--Cometstyles 03:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    Well, despite being an IRC regular, I'm quite sure I haven't been on IRC for 12 hours in a day for a long time, if ever. Mail is certainly an acceptable alternative in my mind.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Respectfully, Cometstyles, it's not fair to ask anyone to be active for "at least 12 hours a day". That's several times more than what most people spend on Wikimedia a day. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
        • actually that was just an example, Lar shows up makes an edit and disappears and as Cbrown above mentions, why is he trying to have all rights on every wiki..whats the motive, its not like he is that active, right now the most active steward is spacebirdy and she has over 1000 user right changes, whereas Lar who was elected the same time as her, just about 100, so he is not active as as steward and he recently oversighted something which was probably not necessary really and he is neither active as a crat with only one renaming which was in October 2007, so to sum it up, he is neither active here as an admin, a steward, a bureaucrat and probably a checkuser, so why should I support him as an oversight ??? ..--Cometstyles 06:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Cometstyles:You are welcome to support or not support anyone as you choose but I think my activity record across all my permissions, while not necessarily the highest in any category, shows that I am quite active, and diligently so. I'm not on IRC 12 hours a day, to be sure, nor do i constantly refresh request pages, so there may be other people that have a higher activity level... but my role as a backstop and person to consult with has not been called into question. So I think this "shows up and disappears" statement is not quite accurate. This isn't a race to see who can pile up the most actions, after all. As I said before, if two other candidates seem likely to pass, I plan to withdraw, because I do have other tasks, but I want to clear up this point of confusion. ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
          • he recently oversighted something which was probably not necessary - How do you know that? Korg 00:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
            • I was on IRC when it happened, and 'a' person that asked me that he wanted something oversighted on meat and the only active steward around at that time was Lar ;)..--Cometstyles 00:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Ok, thanks. Korg 18:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
                • Use of oversight is a judgment call. The judgment involved requires knowledge of the potentially oversighted material to make an informed decision. When it has been possible to do so I have consulted with others (on Commons I almost always consult with my fellow Oversighter, Raymond) about what is appropriate, either at the time or afterwards. On Meta, the persons to consult with have been fellow stewards. I don't think I've oversighted anything inappropriately, and I don't think any of my fellow stewards have done so either. I suggest that perhaps Cometstyles doesn't have access to the same information I do. ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I agree with Cbrown1023 and above. It's too much. miranda 04:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Cometstyles and Cbrown. He sure has a lot of rights, but barely uses most of them. It honestly looks like trophy collecting. Unlike Mike who tends to use tools everywhere he has them, and Herbythyme who gives them up if he doesn't, yours are left to gather dust. I'd prefer someone else who doesn't have lots of other tasks that they don't fulfil. Majorly talk 13:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Nice guy, but too much on his plate. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. On reflection I do not think there is much benefit to having local oversight on meta and that it could in fact be detrimental. At the moment we have over 30 stewards who could oversight edits here, and stewards regularly look in on meta. Creating a local oversight group will lead to stewards deferring to the locally appointed users, significantly reducing the pool of people willing to perform these actions. It seems to me the waiting time for oversight is more likely to increase than decrease (and no evidence has been provided that the volume of requests is such the stewards cannot handle them). I would rather the steward team continued to provide oversight cover for meta, which of course would mean Lar could provide oversight in that capacity. WjBscribe 03:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

  1. Comment Do we want all of our eggs in one basket? Also, Lar has not even accepted this nomination yet... does he think he can handle being an Administrator, Bureaucrat, CheckUser, and oversight? Cbrown1023 talk 01:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    • He has all those positions on commons too, and on enwiki minus oversight and bcrat... Majorly talk 01:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Enwiki arbcom has stated on RfP previously that stewards are welcome to grant themselves oversight on enwiki. I'm not sure how much the lack of that permission is simply technical. Kylu 02:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - while I have supported Lar in the past, there just seem to be too many accesses which Lar holds that he does not frequently take advantage of:

To be honest, it seems to me that Lar has a lot of access that remains largely unused, and I don't see any reason why this should be different with oversight should Lar be promoted. I'll need time to think. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

  • You know, that's a fair point, and thanks for the detailed analysis, Mr. Dissident :). When I stood for some of the roles I have taken on over the years, it was to make sure there were two candidates (where it was required that there be 2), or to act as a check or balance, or to make sure something was covered, rather than because I intended to be the primary user of that right. I don't think sheer numbers tell the tale, at least not the complete one. I'm an administrator of the CU mailing list, and (recently added) the Steward mailing list, and quite active behind the scenes in shaping discussion, I think. Still, if two candidates present themselves for this task that seem to have community trust and are likely to pass, I'd gladly stand aside. I have plenty of tasks. But this task needs doing I fear, and I'm not convinced we yet have two other candidates that will sail through to confirmation. ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It seems Mike and Drini will pass this. I honestly don't think we need three oversights for a project where it's done very rarely. Will you stand aside like you said above that you would? Majorly talk 10:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, when it's clear they are going to pass, and when the misconceptions floating about, including some you yourself have propagated, have been satisfactorily addressed. It's not yet clear they are going to pass but it does look quite promising, doesn't it? ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As en.ws has been included in this analysis, I would like to put this in context. At the time that lar initiated his RFA on Wikisource, we needed admins, he recognised it, and realised that his experience meant that he would be trusted enough to take on the role sanely. He strongly suggested that I become an admin, and I strongly recommended that a lot of people became admins, so after the first month or so of lar being an active hand on deck filling the void, his admin capability was no longer necessary. The number of admins has at least doubled since he become an admin. His contribs there will show that as the number of admins increased, he fell into a roll of being an active voice within the community, doing a lot of boring archiving and tidying up, and also guiding the new admins. The en.ws term of adminship is 12 months, and even at his currently level of activity, he is more active than some of the admins that were elected before him and have retained their adminship. John Vandenberg 03:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • While I trust Lar without doubt but I'm not sure whether he hasn't already enough to do. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 19:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mike.lifeguard

I guess I should return the favour. When this came up a few days ago (in part as a result of an oversight I did, and some discussion among stewards and others, and then on Babel) Mike was one of the people I immediately thought of for this role. I enjoy working with him as a fellow CU and trust him implicitly in that role, and think he's eminently suited to this task as well. He's been showing his mettle in a variety of roles as time goes on:

and I think he can handle this additional duty with finesse and aplomb. I hope you'll support him!

Thanks Lar. If the community trusts me, I'm happy to serve in this role.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Support - as nominator ++Lar: t/c 02:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I'm sorry, while I trust Mike, he's been an admin for just over 2 months. I'd rather this task went to more seasoned users. Majorly talk 02:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC) That was a bad reason to oppose, there's no reason why a newer person can't do the job. Support Majorly talk 02:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Trusted user and already familiar with this sort of sensitive work. Kylu 05:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support & strongly. Mike is someone who has grown tremendously in stature & ability in the time I have known him. Highly capable & very sensitive. Just the requirements for Oversight. He is very active here. There are few Wikimedian I would trust more. --Herby talk thyme 06:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support but it's necessary oversight in meta? --.snoopy. 07:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support Although he doesn't have experiences with oversighting, Mike is very reliable and always calming, which makes him a good candidate for this job. --Thogo (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support I trust Mike with these tools and believe he is suited with these tools. --Kanonkas 11:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support Trustworthy candidate. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support - Mike has my trust, and he should fill out the role well here. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  10. Mike has my 105% trust. —Giggy 05:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  11. samþykkt, he is trusted, but as snoopy, I don't see much need for oversight on meta, however, if people think its needed, let them do it, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support -- Bryan (talk|commons) 20:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support John Vandenberg 00:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support Trusted and hard worker. FloNight 01:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  15. No way or reason to oppose — VasilievV 2 06:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support I trust him. --Kiensvay 07:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support A very involved contributor without any negative issue. --Millosh 12:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support Dedicated user with appropriate level of trust. MBisanz talk 13:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support, per MBisanz. Cirt 19:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support sure --FiliP × 22:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support Trustworthy. NonvocalScream 02:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support --Marbot 20:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC) I changed my vote because I just realisted with a little help that he is a checkuser on enwikibooks.
  23. Support Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support most definitely. WBOSITG 21:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support Maxim(talk) 00:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support --Fabexplosive The archive man 08:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Oppose. On reflection I do not think there is much benefit to having local oversight on meta and that it could in fact be detrimental. At the moment we have over 30 stewards who could oversight edits here, and stewards regularly look in on meta. Creating a local oversight group will lead to stewards deferring to the locally appointed users, significantly reducing the pool of people willing to perform these actions. It seems to me the waiting time for oversight is more likely to increase than decrease (and no evidence has been provided that the volume of requests is such the stewards cannot handle them). I would rather the steward team continued to provide oversight cover for meta. WjBscribe 03:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Would like to have more trust. Emesee 13:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    Would you mind explaining why you do not trust me to perform this function?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose My concerns will be made known to the candidate privately only, upon request. NonvocalScream 04:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose --Marbot 19:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC) neither steward nor checkuser

[edit] Neutral

[edit] Drini

Well, although I'd prefer that there wasn't a "local" oversight group, given the few candidacies I will throw my hat in the ring. Here's mine.

My credentials: steward, sysop at 7 wikis, checkuser at 2, otrs and already identified to the foundation, so I think I'm able to handle the responsability. es:Drini 15:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. support —DerHexer (Talk) 15:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. samþykkt, he is trusted, but as snoopy, I don't see much need for oversight on meta, however, if people think its needed, let them do it, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Obviously... at this rate we'll need you :) Majorly talk 15:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. No problems as far as I can see. Well trusted. --Herby talk thyme 15:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. support --Thogo (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Drini has more on his plate than I do, but seems to have less of a life. Support. If this looks like it's going to pass, I'm out, and gladly. ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support - Drini should do well in this position, and ahs previosuly proven himself able in the position of steward, among others. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support --.snoopy. 16:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support - he suits the job Huji 16:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  10. Sure--Mardetanha talk 19:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support - Meets and exceeds my expectations. MBisanz talk 20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support --Jacob 21:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  13. Absolutely! Highly trusted and will make excellent use of the tools.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support John Vandenberg 00:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support. Trusted user, hard worker. Thank you for volunteering for this work. FloNight 01:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  16. Yes — VasilievV 2 06:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support A hard working and reliable steward. --Millosh 12:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support Hardworking, trusted user. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support Hardworking user, of course Drini should be well trusted enough. --Kanonkas 16:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support --Meno25 02:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support While I agree with WjB, if Oversight is going to be locally applied as well, Drini is someone in whom I would trust to use it properly. -- Avi 02:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support Thank you for volunteering for the job, also! Kylu 04:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support actually uses tools to better the project. miranda 16:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, every candidate that was nominated, Nakon, Majorly, Mike, Drini, and myself... every single one of them "actually uses tools to better the project". ++Lar: t/c 14:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support No doubt. --Kiensvay 10:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support, highly trusted user. Cirt 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  26. Provisional Support. Provided that stewards continue to check the oversight logs for cross checking and accountability until a second oversighter can be elected. I trust this user, and it is my personal belief that each local project (and in the sense that for the purposes of oversight and checkuser, I'll consider meta a local on in this context only, meta is actually projects coordination). NonvocalScream 04:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    There have to be at least two elected oversighters, or none,... that's policy. There is discussion of local policy to provide that stewards are invited to take up, and retain, the oversight bit, without local election. I am not sure that local policy has been widely discussed and doesn't yet seem to have consensus. ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry Lar, I don't see the two oversighters requirement. Where is it. NonvocalScream 17:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    Hmm... can't find it explicitly in policy the way it is for CU. Nevertheless everyone I've ever talked to about this assumes it to be policy, it was assumed global policy on Commons, (we took it into account during elections, and Herby didn't resign until Raymond got elected, so we would always have 2) and I suspect most stewards, myself included, would not set the oversight bit on for just one oversighter on a wiki. Could be wrong. But ya, it's not explicit. Seems a good idea to me though. ++Lar: t/c 14:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    I'm assuming the stewards will continue doing oversight, that's why I would personally prefer this group not be created. es:Drini 04:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support though I would prefer if Lar didn't drop out. —Giggy 05:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    I absolutely plan to stand aside in favour of Mike and Drini, as soon as Mike gets the supports he deserves. He's a really well suited candidate and I'd like to see him get approved... If anyone has any questions or concerns, they should raise them. ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support. ~Innvs: 06:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support of course, —YourEyesOnly 07:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  30. Tacaíocht - trusted implicitly by the community, and a phenomenally hard-working steward. No doubt whatsoever here - Alison ❤ 08:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support --Marbot 19:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support Maxim(talk) 00:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support No doubt --Fabexplosive The archive man 08:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Oppose. On reflection I do not think there is much benefit to having local oversight on meta and that it could in fact be detrimental. At the moment we have over 30 stewards who could oversight edits here, and stewards regularly look in on meta. Creating a local oversight group will lead to stewards deferring to the locally appointed users, significantly reducing the pool of people willing to perform these actions. It seems to me the waiting time for oversight is more likely to increase than decrease (and no evidence has been provided that the volume of requests is such the stewards cannot handle them). I would rather the steward team continued to provide oversight cover for meta, which of course would mean Drini could provide oversight in that capacity. WjBscribe 03:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

  1. Neutral I am fairly neutral on this matter. Emesee 13:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for bot flags

None currently

[edit] See also


Requests for: permissions — bot status — queries — CheckUser information (local) — deletion (speedy deletion | multilingual speedy) — translation — logos — URL blacklisting (whitelisting) — username changes (local) — SUL problem solving — new languages — adminship (regular | temporary | bureaucrat | CheckUser | bot flags) — comments — Interwiki map — an account on WMF — help from a sysop or bureaucrat
Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_adminship"
Personal tools