Meta:Requests for adminship/Whiteknight

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

Whiteknight[edit]

Hello, I'm a bureaucrat and a checkuser on English wikibooks (http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AWhiteknight%2FSandbox&diff=911674&oldid=891592 confirmation). I have over 150 edits on meta already (a small number, admittedly), but I plan to have many more in the near future because of some projects I am working on. I watch the RC feed and have caught a few instances of vandalism or spam or other nonsense. Besides using the {{delete}} template on a few pages, I do feel kind of powerless when dealing with these things. If i can, i would love to be more helpful. If not, that's okay too. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 00:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. Adminship is no big deal. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are not many I would be so happy to support. Quality 'crat on en Books, has taught me a lot personally. More than trusted with the tools --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I had a good feeling when we met on the English-language Wikibooks, though you are not that active on meta, nor very familiar with our rules here. From your contributions, I see you have reached the required number of edits mainly editing Wikimedia Pennsylvania/Bylaws and User:Whiteknight/Bylaws2 these days. You have zero deleted edits that would have indicated you were tagging pages for speedy deletion. It seems from your contributions you have "only" undone 2 vandalisms [1] [2], and both of them have been done today. So I would advocate for waiting a little before requesting sysop tools on this wiki, though I am sure you will use them wisely when you get them. Greetings, guillom 09:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, like i said it really isn't a big deal. You may be aware that replication lag on the toolserver has been high lately (10 days for meta i think, last i checked) so I would expect my number of deleted edits to raise eventually. I'm not in this for any kind of power grab or narcissism or anything, I just want to be able to help. When I'm around I do watch the RC feed and I have caught some spam and vandalism, and I intend to keep doing it whether this RFA succeeds or not. I'll just have to work extra-hard, so that when my next nomination rolls around there is more good evidence about my intentions and my merit. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 13:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no evidence of performing admin-related tasks here. MaxSem 09:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MaxSem--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 09:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good contributions in wiki.--Afinogenoff^?!/_№ 03:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for all above. --Brownout^(msg) 08:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I do not see at the moment any need for sysop tools. Nothing personal, of course. --M/ 19:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
neutral per M/ --dario vet (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — per other oppose. Slade ♠ 17:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed. Consensus not reached, sysop flag has not been granted.: --M/ 22:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]