Meta:Requests for adminship

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

• About Meta
• Discussion pages
• Request pages
• Policies and guidelines
• Information and statistics
• Categories
• Help pages
• Meta-Wiki discussion page

If you would like to become an admin of Meta, please follow the procedure below. This is a serious responsibility. For example meta-admins can edit the fundraising page.

• For Requests for adminship on other wikis see Requests for permissions.

Full policy is available on Administrator on Meta#Policy for requesting adminship.

You may request to be administrator if:

1. You are, or have been, a participant for at least 2 months on at least one wikimedia project (at least 100 contributions).
2. You have a user page on meta, with link(s) to the local project user page, and valid contact address (registered and valid wikipedia email address in preferences, or an email address indicated on your user page).
3. You are (or perhaps have been some time ago) an active contributor on meta (more than 100 contributions). And
4. You are a sysop on a local wikipedia or related project.

The request will stay here at least 1 week. Sysophood will be granted by a majority of at least 75%.

Exceptions

If you need temporary sysop access to edit protected pages (related in particular to languages files), you may request temporary sysophood on meta. In this case, the adminship shall be granted with no requirements and approval, but the user will promise to limit their activity to the necessity of the local project. Sysop access will be valid for one month.

Procedure

1. Make an edit to your talk page on the wiki where you are an administrator about the request specifying the nickname you are using here (for example):

   I am requesting adminship on Meta for the account [[:m:User:<Account>]]. ~~~~

2. Request adminship on this page
3. Include here the link to that version in history of your talk page to confirm your identity

Recently created sysops

Archives of sysops since 2004: archive 1 | archive 2

Current requests

For adminship on other wikis, visit Requests for permission. Thank you!

Tony Sidaway

I've been an editor on English Wikipedia since November, 2004, and became an admin there in March, 2005. As well as this, I have been appointed mentor to two editors by the Arbitration Committee, and in February was appointed a clerk to the Committee. I have developed one tool for tracking the history of anti-vandalism activities on an article, to enable administrators to make decisions on protecting articles. It works on all of the most active Wikipedias and I will adapt it to any other Wikipedia on request.

David and I tend to think pretty similarly so he and I may find ourselves collaborating. I have set up a project to detect and fix bad deletions on the English Wikipedia and I am producing a tool to help with this--the tool will be as applicable to meta as to any other Wikimedia-owned project that is accessible from the Toolserver. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• ZOMG CABAL! Heh. Support - David Gerard 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support as Cabal member, etc. Esteffect 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

David Gerard

I joined en: Wikipedia in late 2003 as en:User:David Gerard, I've been an admin on en: since mid-2004, I was an arbitrator on en: in 2005, I'm on the board of directors of Wikimedia UK and I have a pile of other jobs around Wikimedia listed on my en: user page (about fifteen total). This job found me when Linuxbeak suggested the "make Meta actually useful" project and I enthusiastically concurred. (My view of the project probably involves preserving more stuff than others might for historical reasons, fwiw; it'll be very useful being able to go through deletia to spot errors in deletion. Which will happen, because there's so much complete rubbish.) I have several hundred edits on Meta, I stopped counting after 300. This edit confirms my account on en: is my account here - David Gerard 19:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Violently-strong support. Get sysop'd and start working already, dammit. Linuxbeak 20:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support --M/ 20:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 21:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Amgine / ^{talk meta} 21:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support by default. Esteffect 21:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. First time this gentleman sent me an email was to be discourteous. Nobody can have serious talks without courtesy, especially here because of multilingualism: lack of understanding happens. villy ♦✎ 22:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This assertion would go better with evidence, which I presume will be fit to be revealed in a few days, as I thought your email that triggered it, and your response, were also quite quoteworthy. I should also note this was in a contentious discussion on a Foundation list (not a personal message as Villy implies) - yeah, it's Foundation politics - so can only be quoted by agreement when the matter in question is public; I'm OK with that and assume Villy will be, since he has asserted its relevance - David Gerard 22:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oh yes. Support. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Cspurrier 22:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support --GraemeL 22:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Zscout370 23:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Taxman

I've been an admin on en.wiki for over a year, and a Wikipedian for about 2 and a half years. I thought I'd help out on Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta also, and admin tools would be useful. I also had the unfortunate experience today of seeing a vandal in progress, but without admin tools on a slow connection I couldn't revert as fast as they could vandalize. Yes I plan to be conservative with deletion and whatever is different until I fully get the hang of how things are done here. - Taxman 01:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

And while I think my identity is reasonably confirmed by the cross links on each page, see here per procedure. :) - Taxman 01:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: If I got it right Taxman had 98 edits at the time of his nomination, thus I have a bad feeling. --Marbot 18:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If he had 100, you wouldn't? If that's not the case, could you please expand on the "bad feeling"? Thanks! - David Gerard 19:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Is trustworthy and isn't going to bring down Meta. Linuxbeak 19:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - David Gerard 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Cspurrier 22:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 22:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Zscout370 23:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Zscout370

As part of the Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta, I volunteered to take care of the Media/Images that have been stored on Meta server since late 2002. However, from what I notice, there is a lot of media that is being unused or have better copies at the Commons (which I am an admin at). This is also an issue that I handle at English Wikipedia (where I was given adminship in August of 2005 with the vote of 98/2/0). I wish to bring my knowledge about images to Meta. Zscout370 00:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very good en admin, will do well here too. - Taxman 01:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose (see below)- sorry, you need 100 edits on meta to qualify; you have less than 50. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I been tagging images with {{delete}}, so that is why some of my contributions have been going away. Here is what I have according to Interoit's tool. Zscout370 03:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Neutral - while I'm eager to support (and would gladly support if the aforementioned rule wasn't in there), I'm worried that a "deleted" edit equals an "edit" - a slippery slope. Regardless, it looks like this RfA will pass, so my congrats beforehand, along with my full confidence in you. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Needs to access and has plenty of edits. Linuxbeak 03:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• A vote is useless in this case. Zscout370 cannot be made admin because of the fact that the requirements are not met. My vote would be disregarded even if I support this candidacy. --Marbot 18:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Look again at the edit counter. You will see that he has, as of this post, 549 deleted edits. He's marked a bunch of pages for deletion... he has enough edits. Besides, I know him from en. I'm a sysop here and a bureaucrat at en.wikipedia. Zscout is a sysop at en.wikipedia, and he is not going to bring down the place. In fact, him having a sysop flag will greatly benefit Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta. Linuxbeak 19:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. 22:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - David Gerard 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very good chap. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Cspurrier 22:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 22:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Millosh

I need admin permissions on Meta for dealing with the project Mass content adding. The basic method for all of the work will be this wiki, including versioning of the software. Because of that, some pages should be locked (like the list of approved software and data contributors). I was admin and bureaucrat on Serbian Wikipedia, but, according to our rules, I can't be admin/bureaurcrat if I want to have Checkuser permission on Serbian Wikipedia. (In the next couple of days I should get Checkuser permission.) Also, I am Wikipedian since December 2003. My request for Meta adminship on Serbian Wikipedia can be found here. --Millosh 09:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. SpeedyGonsales 20:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A great project :-) --Elephantus 20:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain, at the moment. Since your request appears to be related only with protection and unprotection of the subpages of a single project, maybe you should request it on the "Requests for temporary sysophood", as stated on Meta:Administrators#Exceptions. --M/ 21:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all, I didn't think to ask for adminship. However, I realized that I would have a lot of asks for page protection and adding content into protected pages. The problem with temporary adminship is that I don't think that project will be temporary (I expect the first results through 3-6 months). Also, if project grows, it will need separate wiki. BTW, I am (maybe just temporary) admin on sr: again because of the conversion software implemented on Serbian Wikipedia (like Chinese) -- I have to deal with special (locked) pages there. --Millosh 21:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. It seems that your case is similar to those mentioned here: Temporary sysoping of the user in question so they can edit the protected pages. In this case, the adminship shall be granted with no requirements and approval, but the user will promise to limit their activity to the necessity of their local project. Preferably, the admin status will be temporary. I am in favour of a temp adminship lasting as long as needed, unless you can help with other general admin tasks on meta wiki. --M/ 11:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. If it is the right way, it would be good enough. There are no problems with not using admin permission outside the projcet (or the projects, because it seems that there is a sense to make some project compatable with Mass content adding); if it is possible, I would like to get not temporary adminship (i.e. not to ask from time to time for adminship again). --Millosh 10:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. If you are willing to act as an administrator on the whole project, I think the community will support your request. I'm afraid that otherwise we're going to end up with a list of sysops that are only concerned each with a definite part of the project. This can have a side effect when people have to seek for admin intervention. --M/ 14:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem to act as an admin of the whole project; i.e., if I need something to get, I am willing to give something, too :) I just would like not to block contributors (except they are clear vandals). Helpin in technical issues is OK for me. --Millosh 15:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support (see above) --M/ 15:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks :) --Millosh 17:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Marbot 17:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support On srwiki, he is a much help. I hope him to be so here as same as there. --Aphaia 10:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - admins on sr: are more like 'senior editors' than 'janitors', hence the conflict of interest requirement; presumably the meta regulation should include 'ex-admins in good standing', however phrased - David Gerard 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sysop confirmation, April 2006

See Meta:Administrators/confirm

See also

• Stewards
• Requests for permissions
• Meta:Administrators, a list of all meta-administrators
• Meta:Bureaucrat log
• Archive of recently created admins