Meta:Requests for adminship/Rehman 2

Rehman

Ending 15 March 2020 14:42 (UTC)

Rehman (talk • contribs • deleted user contributions • logs • block log • abuse log • CentralAuth • stalktoy) Bureaucrats: user rights management.

Hello. Following Meta:Requests for limited adminship/Rehman from May 2019, I would like to request for adminship on Meta. Wikimedia Community User Group Sri Lanka is once again hosting Wiki Loves Earth, and having access to the tools would ease my work at the User Group for the project and future projects, as well as allow me to work in other admin areas of Meta. For transparency, I have been around since 2008, and I am an admin on Enwiki (since 2016) and Commons (since 2011). Thank you, Reh man 14:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rehman: Supported your first (with another username), glad to see this. Just to confirm you are seeking general access and usage of admin tools in meta? What are some areas you will use the tools outside your usergroup? Thanks for volunteering.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Camouflaged Mirage. Some areas I have in mind include general anti-vandal/LTA and RC monitoring (as I am often online/on standby from work), and also WM:RFH, WM:RFD, WM:PPM. I also intend to be available for private assistance to those users who are cyber-bullied and harassed, as I have seen that happen more than a few times. Once WLE concludes, I plan on joining SWMT, although those may not always be directly meta-admin related. I'm willing to help in other areas as needed. Reh man 04:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Rehman. Looking forward to work with you. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I think I can support full adminship. They will add to the team precious language skills that are lacking, having sysop access on major projects and relatively active here. I am just a little hesitant due to the low meta namespace participation and having looking though the deleted contributions, quite little maintenance outside the usergroup. However, I think they are a net positive if given the access. And per the support in their LA. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC) weak support as ~riley, Steinsplitter points make sense. Still see a good valid use, but well the activity during this RFA isn't that good either. Per meta strict activity requirements, I think the concerns of activity can be taken care of.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hehe, keep seeing you on Sri lankan grants and busy with Sri Lankan Usergroup stuffs. Definitely the quality I seek from people that runs RFA on Meta. Glad to have you on board with us, those language skill, in the end you use it for great purpose, helping connecting English Speaking Communities with Sinhala speaking communities.--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 18:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As meta adminship should be granted on request to any sysop on a mid-sized or larger project that is reasonably active here. Rehman meets this as a sysop on enwiki and commons. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 10:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 02:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Competent and experienced. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, of course... --A.Savin (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Can't support knowing their last 50 contribs go back to August 2019 - I would expect at least 50 edits in the last three months prior to requesting adminship and without that very low expectation being met, I do have activity concerns. That said, no concerns with their competence or experience so no opposition. ~riley (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Concerns regarding activity. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per riley.--BRP^ever 06:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but can't support full adminship with this activity. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per above. —Sgd. Hasley 16:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above - good editor but lack of current activity --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Insufficient support. --MF-W 13:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]