Meta:Requests for adminship/Redux

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

Redux[edit]

In opening, I would echo Effeietsanders' words from his nom: since becoming a Steward, I have expanded the time I spend on Meta, which increases the opportunity for situations where I would have need for the tools. And the need that I do have for admin tools, presently, are the following: I monitor the discussions on RfD, often participating, and I notice when discussions have reached the time when the decision to either keep or delete needs to be implemented, something that I would be able to do myself; Second, I keep track of Special:Newpages and tag the clear-cut cases for speedy deletion, so I would be able to take care of those on my own; Third, I also visit regularly Category:Checkme, and check any page in a language I can understand, which usually results in tagging for deletion. When that is the case, I would, again, be able to handle the situation on my own. Finally, I have seen a few known vandals and banned users from enwiki try to disrupt Meta as well, and I have had to request assistance to prevent them from continuing their activity, so this is another aspect of the work I would be able to help with. Other than that, I meet the criteria for Meta adminship — according to Interiot's tool, despite the replication lag, I have a little more than 530 edits, but there are also tens of edits deleted due to tagging pages for deletion; Meta e-mail is enabled, there are links to other projects' user pages on my Meta user page and I am an Administrator on enwiki. Redux 11:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? I'm again the first to support? MaxSem 11:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aphaia 12:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.anaconda 12:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kingboyk 13:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support --User:Dario vet/Sign 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Support --M/ 13:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shocking! Another steward who previously didn't spend that much time here now has increased meta activity... this was exactly the point being made to those opposing various candidates for not enough time or activity on meta... that it would happen naturally, and sure enough, it is. Maybe next year people won't oppose for that reason as readily? Of course I support Redux for admin here, it's a natural thing, and he'll do important work, and will do it well. ++Lar: t/c 13:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, Lar. I don't disagree with what you said, although in my case I was already quite active on Meta before becoming a Steward. I suppose +95% of my edits would be from before the election results were announced on December 22. I had considered asking for the admin tools before, the election to Stewardship only just provided an extra incentive for me to do so. :-) Redux 15:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the proper place to debate this issue, but I'll note here that I strongly disagree with Lar's argument. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're just as wrong now as you were during the election. It, however, is not my intent to disrupt this vote with a debate. I'm open to suggestions as to where to discuss this further, if you or anyone else are so inclined. ++Lar: t/c 20:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, Lar, but I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree at this point. I did my best to make informed and educated votes, and you disagreed with some of my reasonings and votes. I don't think carrying on this conversation, given that the election is already closed, would be beneficial to either one of us. Thanks for your understanding! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have zero desire to debate your vote with you. This is not about your vote, believe it or not. It is about the issue and what it means for NEXT year. As you said, this isn't the proper place to debate it though. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, every trusted user wanting to share the work on meta is welcome :) guillom 15:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concordo; Slade ♠ 16:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--La gloria è a dio 21:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Naconkantari 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support; of course. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cspurrier 16:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shanel 08:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Pill δ 11:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support --Dbl2010 17:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brian ^{Wikinews / Talk} 23:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Marbot 21:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support He's a great bureaucrat on Wikipedia, I trust him. --Majorly 23:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He's a great 'crat on the English Wikipedia. Redux will make a fine admin on Meta, as well. Nishkid64 23:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apoio este utilizador. Grand master ka 12:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bastique 15:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cbrown1023 02:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed. Consensus reached, sysop flag granted.: --M/ 11:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]