Meta:Requests for adminship/Bencmq

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

Closed as successful. -- Mentifisto 14:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Bencmq

• Bencmq (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Hi all, I'd like to request for sysop flag on Meta. Main reasons are 1) primarily I can block vandals quicker and clean up instead of having to poke people on IRC to do it. I'm not sure how this really works/applies, but I'd like to have the local flag in case anyone is not happy about it. 2) also I did quite some CentralNotice-related edits, given the strange fact that zh has 9 variants, and things usually doesn't come out right. To be correct policy-wise, I'd also like to have the local flag.

Oh a quick intro, I am a steward, and locally I am administrator and bureaucrat on zhwikipedia.

Thank you. --Bencmq (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Support, no reason to oppose. --Makecat 14:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Bencmq is a dedicated and capable user, and Meta can only benefit from granting him the extra bit. I am sure he'll make a fine Meta admin. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted, active... micki 14:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, sure! --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 14:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. --MF-W 14:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Always been my personal policy that active stewards should be welcome to be admins on Meta. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Obviously an eligible candidate. Meta-Wiki would benefit from his adminship. πr² (t • c) 14:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  The Meta RfC mentioned below is now policy, but I still support this request. πr² (t • c) 05:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Support per Snowolf and Herby. –BruTe ^talk 15:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment As Bencmq mentions WM:MSR I shall note, again, that I drafted a new policy to substitute that old one. The draft can be found at Meta:Meta–Steward relationship/Rewrite; and it is being discussed at this RfC. If that policy went live, RfAs like this won't be needed anymore I think. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support trusted user. -Pete F (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Yes please. -Barras talk 16:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, obviously. Érico Wouters ^msg 18:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• For sure. I agree with Snowolf and Herby. Mathonius (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Seems reasonable. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, no probs. Trijnstel_talk 22:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Rschen7754 22:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Aude (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 03:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Thank you for helping. --Sotiale (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted cyrfaw (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Very2 trusted user. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, no problem--Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, although imho RfAs such as this one shouldn't be neccessary. --FalconL ^?! 21:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support and I think such RFA's are fine, esp. if a steward wants to keep this flag after leaving office. Courcelles 23:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Echoing what Marco said above, please consider supporting or critiquing this RfC if you feel there should not be a need for RfAs like this one. It seems to have some support, but input from more metapedians would be very helpful. -Pete F (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{@ L C S}˲» 09:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support No reason not to.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)