Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta:Requests for adminship/Vogone

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

Vogone

edit

Seems like a sensible user. Don't see any reason he can't be a local admin here. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I accept. Adminship could be really useful for me with managing translations and fighting against spam here, although I am not sure whether I am eligible or not. The requirements are a bit confusing. Thanks for your consideration anyway, Vogone (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, if he accepts this nomination. He's not an administrator on a content project, but he's a global sysop. He's obviously very reliable, active, and a genuine pleasure to work with. I think it would be very useful to have Vogone as a fellow Meta-wiki admin. Mathonius (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support for the record, this user has an open RFA on wikidata and will thus be an admin on a content project by the time this closes. --Rschen7754 19:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Sure Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support and I believe that global sysop is in effect being admin on a content project, actually, on a whole lot of content projects :) Snowolf How can I help? 19:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per Snowolf, whose səbəb is very good. -Mh7kJ (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Iste (D) 19:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Žinoma! Ja. πr2 (t • c) 21:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 21:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per all above. Great user. Érico Wouters msg 21:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I think a local sysop flag is important, I do Support Support this request (per GS, adminship on wikidata & usefulness of the user :)). Trijnsteltalk 23:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love you. :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 00:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support cyrfaw (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Alan Lorenzo (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and please abolish this pointless rule about being a local sysop elsewhere. Case-by-case is far more effective. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Why not, thank you for helping! --Sotiale (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Stryn (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. –BruTe talk 19:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment for the closing bureaucrat: doesn't respect requirements as of now, so this request can't be fulfilled. However, wikidata:Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Vogone 2 ends 3 days before this. --Nemo 19:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This request can be fulfilled if one chooses to follow Snowolf's interpretation (see above). Mathonius (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Mathonius: Related: this discussion. πr2 (t • c) 20:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mathonius, that interpretation was just a joke, as the ":)" shows. It's obviously not what the policy means, it proved controversial in previous polls on clarifying it, and it's clearly the opposite of what GS are meant to be: «They are not users with sysop tools on all wikis», first line of GS; see also discussions and poll on the introduction of the group which were very clear in saying that it wasn't in any way going to be an equivalent of local administrators. --Nemo 11:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Global sysops are administrators on hundreds of wikis, many of which are inactive and receive very little (if any) scrutiny. The possibility for abuse or mis-use of the admin tools is probably higher than on any medium-size or large wiki. But being an admin on several hundred such projects is less than important than being an elected admin on a single Wikimedia content project, regardless of community size? This doesn't make any sense.

          Either global sysops are trusted users who can—at minimum—stand for adminship here, or they shouldn't be global sysops. Nobody is proposing automatic Meta-Wiki adminship, just the possibility to stand for adminship. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Support--Sokac121 (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support--Frigotoni ...i'm here; 14:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support really trusted user --Bene* (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. Per policy, doesn't meet requirements. Acting as a local admin would be out of scope for a GS. So, I am supposing that Vogone didn't do it, thus doesn't have this important kind of experience that would come from interaction with community. This requirement is sometimes ignored and I just can't understand why. It is fine to disagree with that and it can be changed, but ignoring it is almost disrespectful. And it doesn't matter if he 'will' be elected. With the requirement of being a local sysop, we care about the experience that one had by being it and it is not just a "label".—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 16:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I was sysop there before and in fact I would still be if I would not have resigned due to personal reasons. The policy matter is quite confusing for me, but I respect your opinion on this. Regards, Vogone talk 17:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Teles: that is exactly why this rule should be changed. This rule forces us to oppose good candidates like Vogone, and that's just not in the interest of this project. Adminship doesn't guarantee good community interaction or sufficient experience. And vice versa, no adminship doesn't mean inexperience and an inability to interact with communities in a good way. Mathonius (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good point, but while rules aren't changed, should we ignore them or follow?—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 17:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We should change the rule to align with our values and common sense, of course. Which is why it's so surprising that you've voted to support the current problematic rule. Can you explain? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I said it is a good point; I didn't say it is enough. Do you want me to discuss a rule here? On a request for adminship? I said my reasons on the right place already. Here I said people ignores a rule while supporting this candidacy, which gets clearer comment by comment. Not the first time it happens, but people still don't bother to change rules when there is no adminship request going on. If this rule is so bad, go ahead and change it, but being selective on which rule to follow is kind of dangerous and discredits community decisions.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 09:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support trusted user--Steinsplitter (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support If he interacts well on Meta, nothing else is too relevant.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the policy has been established for a (good) reason but that was - if I recall correctly - not to follow its wording to the letter regardless of the case to be evaluated. The user is able to handle the tools to our shared benefit as Meta-community, he knows his way around the project, and that's what I need to know in this case. I therefore support this motion, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and especially since the WD RFA will most likely be successful, and should close before this RFA, the requirements would most likely be met. The user previously resigned in good standing. Also, the user is a global sysop, and that right allows him to make some administrative actions on some Wikimedia content projects.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose, sorry. This is a matter of policy. When this RfA was started, and AFAIK it still is now, it was a requirement to be an admin on a content project. Vogone was not an admin at the time, and it is questionable whether Wikidata is a content project at all, at this moment. Having two RfA's at the same time is IMO excessive, though the user claims he couldn't do anything about it because he was nominated. However, my oppose is based on the principle that policies should be respected and per the lack of experience as a local admin. If adminship on meta was only about deleting spam, then it should be a GS wiki, but it isn't. Savhñ 09:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikidata is certainly a content project. If you disagree specifically how we assign adminship there, that's your prerogative, but it is defined by all counts as a content project, in the same way that commons or wikispecies is. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose maybe odd but on a policy basis Savh is quite correct. --Herby talk thyme 09:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose - On policy: Let's see what the policy (permanent link) said at the time this request was opened:

    1) Before requesting admin access, please ensure you meet all of the minimum criteria: [b]e an administrator, bureaucrat or checkuser on a local Wikipedia or related content project (...)

    Before this RfA was opened Vogone did not meet all the requirements to stand in a RfA as Teles quite right points out above. The nominator should have read the policy before opening it, and the candidate should have read it too before accepting; because contrary to what the candidate says, the rules are/were quite clear. You may not like those rules but you are not allowed to ignore them this way which is insulting for the community that spent time in writting the policies, for the users that follows them, and for users that got sanctioned for not following them. How do we really expect to be taken seriously at other projects if we ignore the rules in such a way? How do we really expect for users to follow the rules, or worse, demand users to follow the rules if the very admins (and candidates) of this site ignore the rules in such a way? This is so different to the Meta I knew and loved a couple of years ago, and things like this only enforces the views of people that just wants to get rid of us. As a bureaucrat I refuse to recognize the validity of this RfA which is null and void per policy, and I feel strongly dissapointed with the recent events at Meta of policy ignoring. Since will not be closing this per my vote, that'll be for another bureaucrat to decide. We can't be the coordination wiki if we are so discoordinated and so disrespectful to our own policies and guidelines. It is also disputable, as Savh said, that Wikidata can be considered a content project at this stage. On candidate: In addition on what I've said before, I think the candidate lacks the experience I'd like to see in a candiate for Administrator. Vogone's edits shows that he's mainly interested in doing translations and voting on requests, things for which a sysop flag is not required. A very great ammount of his recent contributions are automated messages from Special:NotifyTranslators (which a bot should be doing). Adittionaly Vogone's involvement in community discussion is practically inexistent being this and this the only two edits on that side (the rest of Meta: and Meta talk: edits are reverts and votes in RfXs). However I encourage Vogone to continue helping here if he wants to. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please explain to me how Wikidata is not a content wiki? --Rschen7754 22:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you considered that hostility toward Meta-Wiki (e.g., w:en:WP:IGNOREMETA) has been engendered by vague and idiotic rules such as the rule that a user be an admin on a local Wikimedia content project before being nominated for adminship here? (What's a "content project"? We have no idea, but if we don't like you, we'll certainly use that as a reason to oppose your nomination for adminship.)

      I don't think anyone in the Wikimedia community has an issue with Meta-Wiki exercising good judgment and common sense. I do think plenty of people within the Wikimedia community have an issue with Meta-Wiki enforcing arcane and broken rules at the expense of turning away helpful and capable volunteers.

      The idea that someone could be an admin on hundreds of Wikimedia wikis, but still not be eligible for consideration for adminship on Meta-Wiki never crossed my mind, as it's so far outside reason, decency, and common sense. This request is going to pass and we're going to finally clarify this hurtful and broken rule. And I couldn't be happier about both of these developments.

      I strongly encourage you and others to read (and digest) this brilliant comment by Jan eissfeldt explaining the ideal role of policies and guidelines in our decision-making processes. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Have you considered that your proposal works exactly in the direction of raising such hostility? Surely the en.wiki hostility can't be caused by Meta giving more value to adminship on a wiki such as en.wiki itself than to GS which they don't even accept/use, you must be kidding. You could also go ask to the people who like that essay whether changing the rules for RfA during a RfA for the benefit of a candidate is something that would improve their opinion of Meta. --Nemo 10:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't believe reducing barrier to entry will increase hostility. I don't see how. The English Wikipedia opted out of global sysops, as it didn't have a need for them. Weighing the value of adminship is exactly what the old rule tried to do, claiming that certain adminships were more valuable than others. The new rule stops making such a silly comparison (or at least leaves it to individual voters, rather than attempting to bind all voters by it). The people who support ignoring Meta-Wiki will likely look favorably upon the new rule, but you'd have to ask them to know for sure. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support trusted, global sysop and soon-to-be admin (again, as of tomorrow) on Wikidata. Aude (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support trusted user who is volunteering to help. Legoktm (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; however not on the reason of the (current) policy, whose abolition I support & which I think is fulfilled by the adminship on Wikidata (not however by being a GS, because global sysops specifically are not "sysops on X wikis", but a special function to deal with vandalfighting and other SWMT stuff). However, I accede to MarcoAurelio's points on the candidate. With the nomination just saying "Seems like a sensible user. Don't see any reason he can't be a local admin here" and apparently being made because of a recent sending out of Translation notifications by Vogone (it would probably be the best if the Translation notifications were always marked as bot edits by the extension, but that's another thing), I don't see much reason why he should be an admin. I trust the candidate very much not to abuse the tools (as do lots of others, as we see above), but as recently on Meta:Requests for adminship/Techman224, I don't think just trusting the user should be sufficient for an RFA, but also thinking that he is active enough in "Meta matters". --MF-W 00:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment I am afraid that this particular RfA has put our Meta-crats in an almost un-winnable position. As stated at Meta:Bureaucrats, bureaucrats are bound by both policy and consensus. What we have here seems to be where policy and consensus are in opposition. I think no one will argue that at current Meta policy is to only allow administrative toolset access to people who are already "…an administrator, bureaucrat, or checkuser on a Wikimedia content project." At the time this RfA was posted (18:48, 21 February 2013) Vogone was not an administrator on any content project. Even if wikidata is considered a content project (and I am not stating any personal opinion either way at this time), Vogone did not become an admin on that project until 18:43, February 24, 2013, three minutes short of three full days later. So we have a case where consensus is appearing that Vogone would make a good addition to the Meta sysop corps, but where policy does not allow it. This really is not fair to the local bureaucrats, who are d@mned if they promote and d@mned if they refuse.
What I would suggest to resolve this issue without blatantly disregarding at least ONE of the two requirements to promote to Meta sysop, would be to respectfully request that Vogone place his RfA on hold, let us fast-track an RfC on sysop requirements (perhaps explicitly allowing global sysops or removing the need for administrative experience altogether), have that closed within a week, and then Vogone's RfA could flow through without any impediment. We could convert Meta_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Regarding adminship or elevated privileges on a Wikimedia content project into the RfC needed, being that we have good discussion there already. Technically, withdrawing and restarting the RfA right now may be enough, being that Vogone IS a wikidata admin now, and that may be sufficient.
In summary, I think we do need to revisit meta admin requirements, but we should realize that our bureaucrats are being palced, by this RfA, to have to ignore consensus or ignore policy. My personal opinion is that policy trumps consensus, and that if consensus is that policy should be changed, we have a method for that, so that policy can be brought into line with consensus, at which point we do not have a problem. But short-circuiting the process, to have existing policy ignored due to consensus and the "assumption" that said policy "will be changed" is dangerous, and not the path we should follow. -- Avi (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's quite right; though I think it can also be considered valid thanks to the Wikidata adminship if it were restarted right now. Or maybe also if the bureaucrats just extend the discussion time for this one for the 3 days that Wikidata adminship came "too late". I certainly don't envy our bureaucrats right now either. --MF-W 16:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why that was one of my suggestions (withdraw and resubmit). Regardless, we certainly need to bring policy and consensus into alignment on this issue through the discussion on the talk page. -- Avi (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few points:
  1. "My personal opinion is that policy trumps consensus" This is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard, even though I know it is used a lot in America when wondering what the founders wanted for the country. Policies here are defined by consensus at one time. If consensus is different from that at a later time, the policy shouldn't still be in existence. We should never be measuring the present by the standards of the past. Heck, we shouldn't even need to have discussions about changing the wording of the policy - the fact that Vogone, who for all intents and purposes was not eligible to file a request for adminship here has passed that request, has past a request clearly shows that the current policy is outdated and should be completely ignored. Why? Because there is modern, current consensus which goes against the three or four year old policy. This is obviously different for some policies which should stay the same over time, such as the notability guidelines on the English Wikipedia. But, even in that case, if in twenty years there is consensus to change the policy it should be changed. Live in the present, not the past.
  1. This is a request which, if it passes, will let Vogone have access to a few more buttons which he can obviously be trusted to use well. This isn't a big deal, so why is it being made into one? I am really having a hard time understand what is bringing up all of the opposition to this tiny, borderline-insignificant request. Do the people opposing on the basis of policy hold adminship here in some special light, a trophy which nobody else must get? I doubt it. Do they see some level of esteem that the role of admin here holds, that would be horribly corrupted with Vogone/non-content-admins? I don't know. But something is preventing the usage of common sense here, and it would be nice to know what it is. I've seen some people talking about the role of Meta, and how it is a coordination project, but I really can't follow the "logic" that the admins here must be admins on other projects. On any large content project you go to, you get opposition to how other projects handle requests for adminship - for example, some people on enwiki don't like how Commons runs their RfAs while counting neutral votes against candidates. Simply making meta admins have adminships elsewhere does nothing to compensate for the issues with the other projects themselves. Also, many people on enwiki and other projects criticize meta specifically for our RfA system which just shoes in admins from other wikis.
  2. There is an incredibly easy solution to this problem which Avraham lists above - extend the request by three days. Problem solved. If this is such a massive deal, then do it - I strongly doubt that the outcome will change. As to whether or not Wikidata is a content wiki, it is just as much one as Commons or Wikispecies (and in fact will hold the exact same information as Wikispecies). If people are saying that it isn't a content project instead of something like "The process for gaining the admin bit there is too easy, so it shouldn't be counted towards adminship here", then those people should re-evaluate the importance they put on these rights. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Thank you for taking the time to respond at length and thoughtfully. I will try and address your points individually. Regarding the first point, I am sorry you find this statement ridiculous. Perhaps I was too concise in my wording, so please let me explain more clearly. We have a policy. We have ways to change that policy, but until policy is changed, it remains policy. Furthermore, the subset of metapedians responding to this RfA is a proper subset of all metapedians. We have no way of knowing if the sample of metapedians in this RfA accurately reflect the position of Metapedians as a whole with regard to this policy. Therefore, allowing the consensus currently being demonstrated in this RfA to be a de facto referendum on the policy itself is improper. Of course consensus determines policy, but consensus about X cannot determine consensus on Y which is only related, and not wholly contained therein. Is that a better explanation of what I meant?
  2. I don't think the issue is Vogone's trustworthiness, it is the fact that once a project gets above a certain size, rules are necessary to prevent anarchy. Sometimes the application of the rules may seem somewhat convoluted, or an extra hurdle, but I personally find that much more preferable to potential anarchy. It is unfortunate for Vogone that he had to be the test case that triggered the discussion, and it certainly does not reflect poorly on his behavior or potential. However, as long as we have policies we agree to be beholden to, we should be beholden to them.
  3. Personally, I think it would be "cleaner" to withdraw and resubmit, just to prevent the claim that the RfA is flawed ab initio and therefore doesn't exist wiki-wise, which is a valid claim at this point, sadly. -- Avi (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point for the third, but IMO completely withdrawing and resubmitting is just unnecessary bureaucracy. About the first... I understand why you think what you do, but I would suggest that it still doesn't make practical sense. Like I said, policies should only reflect the current consensus. Ideally, policies should be changed by specific discussion to change them, but in a case like this, it comes back to common sense. It should be obvious to everyone right now that this policy is not supported by the current community here, and will be removed or changed. As such, while I understand why you want to keep following the policy, common sense suggests to just ignore it and close this request as successful, as was done with hoo. Please don't bring in samples of people to this discussion - the largest problem of these discussions, on RfAs or other pages, is that they never have a majority of the people involved expressing their thoughts. Since there are no discussions in which everyone actually participates, it is certainly possible to use this RfA as a de facto consensus, though obviously there should be specific discussion to change the actual policy (which there is). This might have duplicated what MZ said below, yay edit conflicts. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, Adrian. As I expressed to Jan on my talk page, I understand I may have a more strict "legalistic" bent at times than others, which is why having these discussions, airing all opinions, and trying to reach as broad an acceptable conclusion as possible is important. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Avi, you seem to be using words like "cleaner" as though this request for adminship will soon be headed to some wiki tribunal or to some wiki court of appeals. That isn't the case here, of course. So what, exactly, are you concerned about? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that this will head to any "tribunal" or the like. I am speaking from the perspective of someone who has had to deal with complicated wiki-related consensus and policy issues, although not necessarily at the same time, and putting myself in the shoes of the 'crats, I'd like for them to be able to implement the community's consensus without feeling as if they are violating policy, even if that policy will likely change soon. I guess it is more empathy with their position, having been in uncomfortable wiki situations before, and wanting to prevent others from being in the same. -- Avi (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly appreciate empathy, but I don't see how any bureaucrat could have difficulty here. On a very quick count, it appears to currently be approximately 29 votes in support, 5 votes in opposition. And with the exception of maybe one or two votes, the opposition is almost entirely procedural. But let's count all votes equal for our purposes. Even then, we'd see an 85% support rate (29/(29+5)), which meets even our most stringent standards (those used for selecting stewards). If you really feel that the rule about local adminship needs clarification before this request can be closed, this request can simply remain open. There's no deadline. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every person commenting on this request presumably did so with the knowledge of Meta-Wiki's policies, traditions, and the benefits of sound judgment and common sense. The points you raise appear to be non-issues. As Jan eissfeldt and many others have noted, Meta-Wiki policies are not ironclad laws to which we must be slavishly bound. They are generally accepted practice and like nearly everything else on the wiki, they are subject to revision and updates.

    The specific point about whether Vogone was an administrator at the time of filing seems to be mostly a technical issue. If we want to get technical, Vogone was an admin on several hundred Wikimedia content projects at the time of filing. Is this relevant? Not to me and not to most voters. If you feel it should relevant to your individual vote, that's your decision as a voter, of course. But there's nothing at fault with this nomination. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If you mean the global sysop status, that is a completely different kettle of fish. Regardless, I think that now, certainly after these back-and-forths, the individual opiners can decide whether they feel the nomination was incorrect or not, and even if they decide it was, they can still opine how they feel. I do not envy the closing bureaucrat, though. I could see valid reasons for closing this as successful and unsuccessful. My suggestions above were intended to create an RfA which would be successful even according the most "legalistic" metapedian. Thank you. -- Avi (talk)
  • Support Support Why not? /Kattegatt (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because, sadly, current Meta policy seems to forbid it. -- Avi (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, this simply isn't true. I replied to this theory above. But even if all sides could concede that the policy forbids it, Meta-Wiki is free to ignore the policy if it gets in the way of building a better wiki. This is an ancient wiki principle. And I personally don't look kindly on attempts to fear-monger and appeal to emotion by suggesting that exercising sound judgment and common sense will lead to wiki-anarchy. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Avi has more than a point above. Personally, I'm not super-favourably impressed by candidates forcing bureaucrats to bend policies; however, even though the candidate doesn't follow Avi's suggestion to withdraw and re-submit, I expect the closing bureaucrat may do so directly. --Nemo 19:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support mz nominated, no reason not to support. (I already had my share of issue with this requirement rule, this needs to be changed.) Theo10011 (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All this argument over an age-old rule that just limits people from doing work, reminds me of the Monkey-ladder experiment. [1] There is no reason why this rule can't be changed, we are supposed to use common sense. We can always rewrite or put it up for vote, or just ignore it - If this is a deserving candidate, thats the only thing that should matter. Meta is not the same as it was when the rule was written, it didn't have nearly the same number of people, they are the community now. That's an old rule that is irrelevant to a lot of extent. I would urge others to reconsider, we will restart the discussion about the validity of that rule but try and consider this candidate without that rule please.Theo10011 (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed Meta talk:Requests for adminship#Regarding adminship or elevated privileges on a Wikimedia content project. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. :( I'm getting old. Theo10011 (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Vogone&oldid=5291536"