Meta:Requests for adminship/Pharos

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

Promoted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pharos[edit]

Discussion to end at or after 00:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

I have been an admin at English Wikipedia since March 2005 and at Wikimedia Commons since May 2008, and I also have helped with organizing Wikimedia New York City. I would like to request admin status on meta to be able be able to do clean fixes/merges of our chapter's pages, and also to help with the organization of Public outreach and Events pages more generally.--Pharos 00:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, user is not active enough. LeinaD (t) 09:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, we have sysops to do maintance in chapter's pages. As Leinad say. Alex Pereira ^falaê 13:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Huib talk 19:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about a reason? Majorly talk 23:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason is the same as per above. Huib talk 08:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

support. 445 edits on meta: are okay, user is trusted and won't abuse his rights. Could be more active either. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, I do not see you doing work in any sysop areas at all. As such, I'm unclear why you need the sysop tools, and thus how the project would benefit by you having them. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't really see a need or the activity to require it. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above reasons. Pmlineditor Talk 16:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- since I still think adminship on Meta is no big deal and would choose not to deny them to anyone trusted who expresses an interest. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 15:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't really understand the oppose reasons. User is certainly trusted--requiring him to provide "need" is really necessary. Please don't turn Meta into a bureaucracy. --bastique ^demandez! 20:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - He's a trusted user. That's enough for me. --Philippe 20:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support trustworthy. Cbrown1023 talk 01:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Adminship on meta is no big deal. -- sj | translate | + 03:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adminship is no big deal. 445 edits seems to be enough. Above all, user is trusted. Pmlineditor Talk 11:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support trusted user --Jan eissfeldt 17:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I see no strong reason to oppose.--Jusjih 03:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrat note: This RfA currently stands at ~64% support, which falls on the cusp of promotion/no consensus. I reviewed the archives and the only three RfA's that I could find that were in this region percentage-wise were Meta:Requests for adminship/David Gerard, Meta:Requests for adminship/Taxman and Meta:Requests for adminship/Tony Sidaway, all from 2006. While this RfA should have technically closed, I would support extending it for another two days to see if the percentage reaches a clear promote level. If other bureaucrats could chip in with their opinions on this, that'd be much appreciated. Daniel (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say exactly the same more or less last night, but my connection went. There's no harm in leaving it open until there's a clearer consensus. It's actually very unusual to have a mixed response to an RFA on Meta - normally it's favourable or against without any mix, so it would be best to leave it until more have voted. Majorly talk 13:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion seems to be swaying. Let's see what things look like on the 16th. All in all, I'm more in favour of a promote at the moment, since some of the opposes haven't really provided strong reasoning. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Pharos is trusted (by me personally, and by the larger Wikimedia community) and sane enough to think before acting. He knows how to use the tools, they will make his editing life easier and help him improve and maintain this wiki. This is a win-win situation. guillom 13:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pharos is a trusted user and an asset to the project. The tools would help him in working on the chapters pages and other areas on meta. Aude 04:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per rationales given above. NW (Talk) 19:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trustworthy and highly competent user. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]