Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta:Requests for adminship/Adambro

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

Adambro (withdrawn)

edit

I'd like to request adminship here so I can apply the experience I've gained elsewhere within the WMF projects to helping maintain Meta. I can't claim I expect to be particularly active here but certainly expect to be able to contribute by deleting pages beyond the project's scope and also spending time ensuring images meet current policy by applying knowledge gained working on Commons, in particular. Adambro 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose. Seems a little bit too early for me. Not counting the user page edits, there are less than 100 edits. For me it seems as if you just made 100 edits only to apply for sysopship... Not that I wouldn't trust you, but I just don't know you. --Thogo (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have a same impression with Thogo. I don't know you either - as an actively involved editor particularly. You might not be upset, since you admit your relatively inactiveness. --Aphaia 23:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - In response to the two opposes, I certainly can appreciate the concerns. I would ask that my experience elsewhere be taken into account. Despite not being able to demonstrate a higher number of contributions here, I clearly understand the broader context of the WMF through adminship on a number of other projects. Yes, I do only just have 100 edits, I have a number more under AdambroBot however, and I would ask that this contribution is considered. Whilst I only just meet the requirements, I would ask in what way delaying my request for adminship benefits the project. I have an established record within other WMF projects and so feel I would be more valuable with admin rights and so able to address appropriate problems than without and it is easily demonstrated that I understand what adminship entails and how to comply with policies. I'd suggest that it should be clear that I am not going to do anything stupid and so the project only stands to benefit. Adambro 23:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can believe that you will not do anything plain stupid - but I cannot be certain that you would not do stupid things unintentionally. Are you familiar enough with Meta to know what it is for and how the community works? Do you know the inclusion policy? Quite a few folks from the English wikipedia confuse their own policies for meta policies. And very recently some folks have stated "ophaned and uncategorised" as grounds for deletion . And why are you so impatient? For what exactly do you want the sysop flag? Hillgentleman 00:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want the sysop flag so I can better serve the project during the time I spend working here. I have read and understood the inclusion policy and have on a number of occasions tagged pages for speedy deletion on the basis of that policy. I would suggest this is a useful contribution to Meta but this won't be reflected in my edit count due to the pages being deleted. Adambro 07:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was troubled several times by "good admins" on English Wikipedia who didn't understand meta is not English Wikipedia, specially the differences of inclusion policy. Sometimes they didn't hesitate to teach me - as translator cooridinator - what was not relevant to meta and translation, while they hadn't been involved into that activity. I don't say you are such sort, but since I don't know you, I have no reason to say you are not that, either. So, Your argument drives me more strongly oppose for your promotion at this time. I prefer you to prove your sufficiency claim with your own involvement to meta, specially deletion related discussions. --Aphaia 10:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I know this user from Wikinews (helped me cleanup a really big mess) and I believe that his contributions to images licenses and inclusion policy articles will be really helpful..Cheers..--Cometstyles 00:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral - I echo Hillgentleman. I will think on this. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As a Wikipedia admin yourself, I'm sure you can appreciate it is perfectly possible to act as an admin here whilst ensuring that policies and guidelines are complied with. I don't see being a Wikipedia, Wikinews, and Commons admin as a weakness, I would argue that it demonstrates my ability to understand the different issues affecting these projects and act in accordance with each project's policies. Adambro 07:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On further reflection, I think that I will Support Support this request. Adambro has, really, demonstrated his administrative capabilities elsewhere, so I think it should be fine. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question This request is framed effectively around RC patrolling. In practice without Birdy there wasn't much to do (even before I got the rights I often didn't get to tag a page before it went). With Birdy none of us get a look in! Is that all you see yourself doing? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd certainly keep an eye on RC and act appropriately when I spot problems but one of the main ways in which I feel I can help is by dealing with image issues. I've done a fair amount of work on Commons and also on Wikinews dealing with such images; moving images to Commons where appropriate, marking images as missing required information and contacting the uploader, and deleting those where policy dictates. This is the area I can probably make the biggest contribution and where I would concentrate. Adambro 12:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response. I'm afraid my vote then is Oppose Oppose with regret. The answer actually demonstrates that you haven't watched what does happen here with RC work (& frankly the Commons activity isn't what I would call high, more experience there might be useful to you) so I feel it is too early for now. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that moving images and things to Commons is a fairly contentious issue, and not one that I'd recommend a new admin undertake without a lot of understanding. I certainly don't think I understand all the ramifications. ++Lar: t/c 15:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to Herbythyme, firstly, I never claimed to have a high activity on Commons, merely suggested that my experience there will be useful in dealing with image issues here. Also, could I ask in what way my previous response "demonstrates that you haven't watched what does happen here with RC work". I don't feel such a statement is very helpful, if you are going to oppose me at this stage then at least provide me with some constructive comments that will help me develop as an editor. Thanks. Adambro 17:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral for now. --A. B. (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment is there anything written down as to What Meta is Not or about how things are different here? I sometimes still feel a bit in the dark even after editing here for over a year. If there's nothing good that's in writing, perhaps one of our wise meta-elders could jot down a quick essay. --A. B. (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm abstaining for now, as I don't know you; I will be more comfortable if you gain some experience here on Meta. I noticed you dealt with images here (thank you!). In your above comment, you said that you "[contact] the uploader" after marking images as missing required information; may I suggest you to also notify the users who uploaded such images here? Users are not necessarily aware that their images have been tagged. Thanks, Korg + + 16:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it seems clear that consensus is not going to emerge in support of my RfA, I may as well withdraw the request and take time to consider the process. It seems bizare to me that despite meeting the criteria outlined above and being trusted with admin rights on three other WMF wikis that people choose to oppose me on the grounds that I haven't demonstrated experience here beyond required by the criteria. I'd suggest we should consider updating the criteria to reflect this as having 100 edits and meeting the other requirements is clearly not enough. People have kept saying that there are differences between Meta and Wikipedia etc yet are slow to provide any suggestions as to in what way. My experience elsewhere should demonstrate my ability to understand guidelines and policies as is required of an admin. I intend to leave it a few weeks and start another RfA at which point I'd hope the community would feel able to support me. Adambro 12:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Adambro&oldid=2608642"