Meta:Requests for adminship/Tks4Fish

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

Tks4Fish

Tks4Fish (talk • contribs • deleted user contributions • logs • block log • abuse log • CentralAuth • stalktoy) Bureaucrats: user rights management.

Not ending before 8 March 2021 20:33 (UTC)

Hi folks!

I've been a steward for one year now, and now I'm starting my second term. I have mostly used my tools on meta as related to/allowed by the meta–steward relationship, but there was a recent concern that my block of Ottawahitech, which I did in my SE ElectCom member capabilities, and set it to end when the elections + confirmations do, may have overstepped that boundary. Thus, I am requesting adminship, and will also help on the admin duties around here as needed.

As for experience, I am a sysop on ptwiki, where I am also a CU/OS. Thanks! —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 20:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support sure. Sgd. —Hasley 20:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good enough to be a steward, good enough to be a meta admin. Praxidicae (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~I guess...~~ Of course. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess you'd be okay. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Reason does not convince me (fix the Meta-Steward rules instead, plus you'll be done as an EletCom member), but then there are no other red flags. Leaderboard (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, without problems--MrJaroslavik (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So basically what happened here is you blocked a user without being a sysop and are requesting sysop for that? I'm not sure if "ElectCom blocks" are a thing, but if they are not, then that would mean the request for sysop is because tools were used in violation of policy, for which I'd oppose the request. If they are, then I don't really see what difference sysop would make and I'd be neutral. Naleksuh (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are a thing. I'm requesting adminship not to make a previous block any more valid than it already is, but so that I can act here as a sysop to help the project, carrying out blocks, deletions, protections, etc. from now on. It'll also allow me to do those kind of blocks, or other local tasks related to stewardship, without concerns being raised about me not being a local admin. Hope this serves as a clarification. Best, —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 23:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, I was around when Requests for comment/Abusive stewart of Korean Wikipedia was created yesterday, but decided not to delete it as I wasn't a local admin. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 23:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, thanks for clarification. I suppose what I said above shouldn't be a huge problem then (I said that before a user in #-elections-chat pointed out that you weren't a sysop here immediately followed by this RfA) but that is reasonable. I think I will be neutral here. Not that there are any objections from my support, just that I don't participate a lot with meta project stuff. Naleksuh (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mirinano (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No concerns ミラP@Miraclepine 01:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no issues. Excellent user ~~alike me~~. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat ^{[ contribs | talk ]} 05:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I don't see any problems. -- CptViraj (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes please. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rs chen 7754 01:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely, yes. Operator873^talkconnect 03:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support EstrellaSuecia (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --94rain ^Talk 13:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Trusted & experienced. Plus no issues with their work as a steward. Meiræ 17:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support :p --Sotiale (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 08:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vermont (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ammarpad (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Qualified, trusted. No concerns :) Rafael ^{(stanglavine) msg} 23:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure! No issues :) --Superpes15 (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support * Pppery * _{it has begun} 01:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support 42. -BRP^ever 11:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
42? Leaderboard (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. As his username seems to come from the phrase -- So long, and thanks for all the fish.-BRP^ever 13:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support all stewards decently active on meta should be granted sysop. --IWI (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --Minorax^talk 14:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RadiX ∞ 14:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support SQL ^{Query me!} 05:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Defender (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -FASTILY 04:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support you're not one already? :) --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Surprised to see this RfA, thought you already had the bit. All the best! Java Hurricane 11:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support My only negative reason is that applied for Meta admin after became a steward. But I'm sure that Tks4Fish knows Meta-steward relationship as a steward. --Uncitoyen^talk 15:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support and no issues with the electcom block, though perhaps a request on RFH would be better next time for a non-admin steward. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. Successful application. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above request page is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Comments about this page should be made in Meta:Babel or Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.