Meta:Requests for adminship/Techman224

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

Techman224

Techman224 (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Ending 26 January 2013 00:17 UTC

Hello, after a comment on IRC saying that I should run for adminship here on meta, I decided to post this request. I request adminship here so I can delete spam and block users for spamming and vandalism. Being an administrator would help me greatly, without having to ask someone else. I'm currently an administrator on Wikimedia Commons and a temporary administrator on Wikidata. I have some experience with the Abuse Filter that might help against spammers who use the same pattern. I currently monitor #cvn-meta^connect and #cvn-sw^connect. Thanks. Techman224^Talk 00:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not seeing much need for the sysop flag here, sorry. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel that the above rationale is more than enough to justify obtaining the sysop flag.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the above is justification... not really sure what else you can do on Meta with the admin flag, really. --Rs chen 7754 01:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets all requirements on RFA:
1. Be an administrator, bureaucrat or checkuser on a local Wikipedia or related content project.
  Commons and Wikidata
2. Have a user page on Meta, with links to the user pages on other participated projects. This can state that SUL is activated or be provided via a Wiki matrix if that is not possible.
  Userpage exists, contains information about projects on which user is active and a note that SUL is activated
3. Have a valid contact address (either a confirmed email address in preferences, or a valid email address on the user page).
  EmailUser works
4. Be a currently active contributor on Meta. This is a subjective, not an objective, measure and there is no official post count.
  Subjective. I think that Techman224 is active enough.
In addition, I trust the user: he is active in the SWMT and will do a good job removing vandalism, spam, and performing other admin actions. πr² (t • c) 01:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cyrfaw (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support trusted user --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think you are active enough here, sorry. Also not many deleted speedy deletion requests or so. --MF-W 16:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tough call here - known user with skills. However no matter what the policy says about anything at least half the last 100 edits take you back to early last year and that just isn't active enough for me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, per MF-W and Herby above. I trust Techman not to abuse the tools, but there doesn't seem to be a real need here. Sorry, Sa vh ^ñ 18:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ajraddatz, MF-Warburg, Herbythyme and Savh. No real need for the buttons. Trijnstel_talk 22:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Techman is trusted and sure the tools would enable him to be more helpful on meta. Aude (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appears to have useful skills per remarks above; better to proactively admit qualified admins when they become available to ensure coverage, keep workload reasonable. Djembayz (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted user--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 16:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support echoing Aude's argument. Courcelles 00:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose of course not matter of trust, no real need, maybe couple of month later Mardetanha ^talk 16:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with Courcelles. I don't know whether he's adequately active or not but he's trustworthy, so can help here. --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 17:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Savh and MF-Warburg. -Mh7kJ (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all of the opposes here are for me not being active enough on Meta. Since this RFA is closing shortly, it looks like I won't have enough support to pass. I will try to be more active on Meta and reapply when I have more activity. Thanks to everyone who participated. Techman224^Talk 23:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: No consensus to promote. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]