Meta:Requests for adminship/Picaroon9288

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

Picaroon9288

Hi there. I'm Picaroon, a Wikimedian since March of 2006. I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia, my native project, where I have somewhere between 9000 and 10000 edits. (Here is verification that I am the same user.) I have become more active here on Meta in the last two weeks, improving some pages and tagging others for deletion, via requests for deletion and the speedy deletion process. So, I request administrator status here to aid in helping out. Picaroon (Talk) 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes: Support/Oppose/Neutral: 12/4/2

Support Majorly (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust you and you meet all the criteria. Cbrown1023 talk 23:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good fellow who goes above and beyond what is necessary to communicate with and help out his fellow volunteers Gaillimh 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does good work on en:wp and is a trustworthy, helpful sort. Support ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see nothing to suggest that there should be any reason to oppose Picaroon's becoming an admin. Joe 19:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 19:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support why not.--The Joke النكتة‎ 20:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support :) --Roosa _(Talk) 20:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sean William 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fabexplosive 16:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I'm sorry, but you are requesting sysopstatus on the day you get 100 edits here? I understand you have a lot of experience in other wiki's but please get a little more used to the way meta works before becoming sysop here. Maybe in a month or so you would be a very good candidate. Thanks. Effeietsanders 17:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Effeietsanders. Also I'd point out you have seldom edited main namespace or other discussion page. I am not sure if you understand this community is not identical with English Wikipedia and share the idea what meta is from your edits. You would however be a good candidate in months later. --Aphaia 17:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very aware of the fact that it is separate from enwiki. If I thought it was identical to enwiki, why would I have bothered trying to rewrite the page Arbitration Committee to make it equally applicable to all projects? I log in to Meta every day and work on special:uncategorizedcategories, as well as do other things. There is a view that Meta is just a policy-workshop/storage place for enwiki (which is why some MfDs at en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion end with "transwiki to Meta," when the pages in question should actually just be deleted), but I do not subscribe to that view. Meta is a coordinating wiki for all Wikimedia Foundation projects, and indeed has a community of its own, as shown by the turnout for this RfA. Picaroon (Talk) 16:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - my attention was drawn to this when I read the comments of others who's views I respect. There is a sense in which there is nothing against this however equally, at present, there is nothing really for it. I find myself agreeing with Effeietsanders. If this does fail then try again with some more edits showing a need for the tools --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by edits which "show a need" for sysop tools. If you'd like me to verify that I have tagged multiple things for speedy deletion, then I think that Drini, Majorly, Cbrown1023, Flcelloguy, Aphaia herself, and many more admins would be able to verify that by looking through their own deletion logs. In addition to handling speedy deletion requests I would be available to close requests for deletion, respond to requests for help from a sysop and, one of the things I'd like the sysop bit for most, revert vandalism with the rollback tool. Other than that, what can I say? Meta is not going to collapse if I do not become an admin, and I will just keep editing as always, but when I think everyone will agree that I would not misuse the sysop tools, and I have several things I would like to help out with that can only be accomplished with the sysop tools, wouldn't it make more sense to just entrust me with the tools now, rather than mandating more time and edits? Picaroon (Talk) 16:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (refactored by Aph.) Besides a joke, I have seen some Enwiki sysop who requested for adminship with very low edits (close to 100 like you) violated our deletion policies and speedied the pages which shouldn't have fallen into meta speedy criteria. That is partly why some editors around here are very cautious for hasty requests, specially from English Wikipedia. It was very annoying to find my favorite worktool became a redlink by someone unknown.--Aphaia 16:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  (refactored by Aph.) While I assure you I would be cautious to the upmost degree when deleting things around here, I nevertheless understand your concerns Would you prefer me withdraw my request now, or just let the whole thing play out? Picaroon (Talk) 16:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I appreciate your decision to withdraw, but it is up to you. As for addressing, I wouldn't discuss here further. While I am embarrassed, I expect you didn't it on a bad faith. However if you give me a permission to attune it fitting to my preference by my hand, I'll very appreciate you. Thanks. --Aphaia 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, go ahead. Picaroon (Talk) 18:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks :) Done. --Aphaia 21:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Marbot 09:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Whilst I have nothing to say about the candidate, I am convinced that meta adminship is quite sensible since write access to some global portal and to meta blacklist is given. At this time it seems that there is not a demonstrated need of this tool. In addition, this user is fairly active as a temp admin elsewhere and I happen to find it more useful. --M/ 16:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral As above. Filnik 16:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brownout^(msg) 17:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there is still a possibility that this RfA might pass, it would do so with a significant portion of respondents in disagreement, which is something that should be avoided if possible. I think it would be better for me to just hold off for a later date when I have been actively editing Meta for longer and am more familiar with all the participants, so I hereby withdraw. Thanks to all for their participation. Picaroon (Talk) 18:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]