Meta:Requests for adminship/Frigotoni

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

Frigotoni

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

Ending 16 February 2013 18:18 UTC

Hello. I would like to request for admin flag here on meta so as to block/delete spammers, deal with vandalism and cross-wiki issues from SWMT entries, as I'm doing elsewhere. Meta is particularly subject to it. It happened sometimes I had to poke some local admin to prevent a vandal from editing further. I don't know if I'm active enough, I believe so though, and I'm pretty sure I can help Meta's community (I mean, should be no longer active, I would ask to remove it forthwith, even though I hope to help still for a long time) paying (almost) always attention about what's to be done, as I did so far.

Please see my user page or RfGS for those who don't know who I am and for further information. I hope to say everything. Thank you, --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 18:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Iste (D) 18:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rs chen 7754 20:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets all requirements on RFA:
1. Be an administrator, bureaucrat or checkuser on a local Wikipedia or related content project.
  Venetian Wikipedia (vecwiki) and Italian Wikiversity (itwikiversity)), as well as MediaWiki.org, which may not qualify as a "content project"
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/has rights, but does not explicitly state that SUL is activated. However, SUL is activated so it is fine for me.
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.
  For me, yes.
In addition, I trust the user: he is active in the SWMT, is a global sysop, and, as stated above, is an admin on some other WMF wikis. This shows that he can be trusted as an admin here and he would make a good addition to the Meta admin ~~cabal~~ team. Buona fortuna! πr² (t • c) 21:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Experienced candidate. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good user and per PiRSquared comment. Érico Wouters ^msg 22:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Courcelles 22:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Active and with a use for the tools. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? cyrfaw (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Make cat 10:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 11:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ofc he meets all requirements, otherwise it would've been invalid. Neutral because of the issues on it-wiki (~~socks~~, no local sysop). Trijnstel_talk 14:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By "no local sysop", do you mean to say you are ~~opposing~~ not-supporting in part because he's not a sysop on it-wiki? What issues on it-wiki? πr² (t • c) 14:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's a while ago, but he was blocked for sockpuppetry on itwiki. That's probably why he's not an admin there as well. I supported his global sysop nomination in the end of last year, because he's pretty active overall. While he does a lot lately, 711 edits here isn't very much & that's why (in combination with) I voted neutral. Trijnstel_talk 14:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
711 edits is still more than some other admins (e.g., User:Mh7kJ). πr² (t • c) 17:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn. Trijnstel's right. My fault, sorry --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 14:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn by user. -Barras talk 10:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]