Meta:Requests for adminship/Zscout370

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

Zscout370

Vote closed; not promoted. eligibility for request wasn't sufficient at the nomination moment. --Aphaia 10:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support. Very good en admin, will do well here too. - Taxman 01:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
Support. Needs to access and has plenty of edits. Linuxbeak 03:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - I strongly encourage Zscout370 to start editing in Meta. I believe that Meta is not only about marking pages, pictures etc. for deletion. The future will tell if he is on a good way. --Marbot 19:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - What exactly is out there? I might post every so often to the Spam List to add websites, and tried the logo making stuff, but what is there for me to do? Zscout370 23:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that comment speaks in your disfavour. There's plenty of activity going on, ranging from the Overhaul Meta and Historical projects to general discussion and proposals. If you are not able to find any of these areas, you might need a little more time here before you're ready to administrate it. Adminship is about a little more than being able to speedy delete pages. // Pathoschild (^talk) 01:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
        I came here because of the project Meta overhaul, and that was why I have the X deleted edits for getting rid of the non-Meta photos (which is almost done). But will my question disfavor me, nah, I do not think so. Zscout370 15:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 22:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - David Gerard 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good chap. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cspurrier 22:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 22:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Esteffect 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Joined meta on the 28th of march
Support yes --Doc glasgow 12:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 15 edits on meta. All to user page and vote here.
  - (True, so discount the 'vote' if that's the rules - but being an admin with 10k+ edits on en.wiki perhaps entitles me to be a character witness)--Doc glasgow 18:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 18:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not much experience on Meta. Korg + ⁺ 02:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brian ^{Wikinews / Talk} 09:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minimum criteria not met. The criteria are not burdensome; please satisfy them and reapply in another month :-) Sj 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Locke Cole • t • c 18:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Precisely, that vote should be closed due to lack of eligibility in my opinion. --Aphaia 06:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - too soon. oscar 17:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. James F. (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Andrevan 22:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. UninvitedCompany 03:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]