Meta:Requests for adminship/Tiptoety

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

Tiptoety edit

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

Requirements:

Be an administrator, bureaucrat, or checkuser on a local Wikipedia or related project. Admin on Commons, Enwiki, Simplebooks, and Simplequote
Have a user page on Meta, with links to the user pages on other participated projects. Tiptoety has both a wikimatrix and a SUL unified account.
Have a valid contact address. Tiptoety has an active, previously verified special:emailuser.
Currently an active contributor on Meta. I'd agree with this.

I'd like to nominate Tiptoety for Meta Admin. Tiptoety has a desire to move into a more multiproject role and has noted that the times he's active, there are fewer Meta admins around: Promoting him would give us better time coverage for keeping users abusing open proxies from attacking the site, as well as removing content which does not fall under our scope of inclusion, including some more objectionable content. Given that vandals and other external threats have discovered that there is more to Wikimedia than the project they originally targeted, increasing our number of administrators can only assist us. I've talked to Tiptoety, and he's willing to help defend Meta and the projects which depend on it. Kylu 03:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept, thank you for your nomination. Tiptoety ^talk 03:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. Kylu 03:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Kylu -- @lestaty ^discuţie 04:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems great one for adminship for me ;). RubiksMaster110 04:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WizardOfOz 10:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --თოგო ^(D) 10:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 10:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's good that he is trusted and has GR along with admin on multiple projects but my concern is whether he really needs the tools. I see only (15?) reversals in contribs and he has only 22 deleted edits. Most of his edits are welcomes, commenting etc. I don't see much activity either - he has made 7 edits in the entire month of December and has 220 edits overall. For these reasons, I oppose this request. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pmlineditor. I understand and hear where you are coming from. That said, Meta is not the most active project itself often making it hard to find places to edit. While I understand you would like to see more vandalism reversals, it is hard to do when the amount of vandalism on this project is minimal and is often reverted quickly by members of the smwt. I agree that I was not the most active editor in December (seeing as I was on vacation), but I know I was more active than a number of Meta's current administrators. I can say to you, with certainty, that I do not plan on being inactive on this project. Tiptoety ^talk 19:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per Pmlineditor. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Meta is a non-content project, so you have to be really bad to get my oppose. Should be fine; has proven that he knows how to click the extra buttons. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I think he'll pitch in enough to make this promotion worthwhile. He did on Commons. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? Competent and trusted. GlassCobra 20:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: For me, Meta adminship ultimately comes down to whether the user can be trusted and has clue. Tip's work on other projects leave no doubt in my mind that he will be a fine admin here. --MZMcBride 20:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I believe that Meta adminship should be handed out easily to any admin from another project who has not demonstrated a lack of clue. Tiptoety is trusted and intelligent and will be a fine administrator. NW (Talk) 20:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Trustworthy. Ottava Rima 00:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm supporting due to his track record of reliable edits. MBisanz ^talk 05:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support whynot trusted and no real reason not to. James (T|C) 07:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Innv | d | s: 10:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good user who seems to know when to use the tools. And btw, I also had only about 250 edits when I got the tools. -Barras ^talk 20:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trustworthy and will both use and not abuse the tools. -- Avi 07:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, whith respect to Pmlineditor's comment; I think that he can make a good addition on the team. — Dferg ^(disputatio) 11:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support indeed. PeterSymonds 11:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I do have my concerns, I am willing to support Tiptoety, even if the support is weak since I believe that he can help the wiki as he has sufficient experience. Think he will be a good addition to the team. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Of course. Wutsje 18:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.snoopy. ✉ 07:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Useful user --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —§ stay (sic)! 04:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support active cross-wiki work --Church of emacs talk 22:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can be trusted to be an admin here. --Patar knight^chat/_{contributions} 05:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support can be trusted. Laaknor 23:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support —DerHexer (Talk) 23:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Razor flame 00:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --Az1568 (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]