Meta:Requests for adminship/WereSpielChequers

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

WereSpielChequers edit

WereSpielChequers (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)
Ending 23 December 2011 21:05 UTC

Hello everyone. This is a self nomination for adminship on Meta. I seem to be spending quite a bit of my wiki time here so I thought it might be useful for me to have the tools here. I've been an admin on enWP for more than two years and have several thousand admin actions there, I also have a few thousand edits on Commons and have edited 37 different wikis (I started the Death anomalies project which has lead me into a fair bit of cross wiki work). I think my admin actions on EN wiki have usually been uncontentious, as I hope would any admin actions I make here. WereSpielChequers 20:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- WereSpielChequers is very knowledgeable about the Wikimedia movement, and has been a great contributor to everything from the Strategic Plan to the Terms of use rewrite. Meta could only be better off by giving him access to some additional tools. -Pete F 22:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, no need for the tools. While there is no doubt that he is a great admin on enwp, this isn't enwp, and I see no reason for him to have access to the sysop tools here. He is not active in countervandalism, not interested in the spam blacklist, has very few deleted contributions, and is not involved with the central notice. Sorry, but I cannot support this request. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Sensible editor; not concerned that the tools will be misused or abused. --MZMcBride 23:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peteforsyth. As much as sysop on Meta allows one to make a mess if used cluelessly, it also provides lots of benefits to active cross-wiki workers. Courcelles 02:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support highly trusted, experienced, knowledgeable in meta-wiki affairs, and would be handy for him to have the tools. Aude 03:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ajraddatz. That's not a matter of trust and that's not about the work you're doing generally, but I never support adminship requests when I don't see a need for the tools. Especially for meta-wiki, where the actions can have an impact on other projects (such as the spam blacklist for example). Sorry, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 12:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I don't see the need for the admin flag here on meta. Trust does not mean that he needs the admin tools. Per Ajr and Quentin. Sa vh ^ñ 14:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Adminship on Meta genuinely is no big deal when we're discussing established editors unlikely to break things. I see no reasons to oppose but plenty of reasons to support. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ajraddatz, Quentinv57 and Savh. I really appreciate your work, but I don't see the need for the tools, sorry. Trijnstel 22:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My fellow opposers have expressed my opinion quite nicely. I hope that WereSpielChequers' doesn't take my opposition personally. You are certaintly trustworthy!--Piast 93 22:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the others and equally nothing personal. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no, per above, sorry. Trust and experience are certainly no problem here, but on Meta, you really have to need sysop rights for what you are doing in order to get them and I don't see any such need. --თოგო ^(D) 09:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral You do some great work on en.wikipedia, so I have no reason to believe you would misuse the admin bit, but per above, I don't really see a need for you to have tools here on meta. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above--Morning Sunshine 13:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No trust issue here, but I don't see much need for the admin right. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral while user is knowledgeable, his edits on Meta are limited and the TOU page is rather isolated and disconnected from normal Meta issues. His other big section of writing is in the research area, which is equally limited. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ottava, thanks for the feedback. The Terms of Use discussion certainly accounts for a lot of my recent talk space edits and I'd agree that it is disconnected from normal meta, but it is only a few dozen of my >700 edits. I originally started editing meta because of meetups and that probably accounts for more of my edits than the TOU, while Controversial content/Brainstorming/personal private filters is an example of my writing something here outside of either research or terms of Use areas. WereSpielChequers 09:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: no need at all for the tools and no involvement at all or knowledge enough of Meta's community and processes, for instance his first edits to Meta: namespace are on this page itself; plus (because he mentions it) I don't see enough "cross wiki work" aka "crosswikiness". A valid user. Nemo 19:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Just try to re-apply in 6-months. Do some experience first and you can reapply later. I suggest to do some experience and reapply actually in 2012. --Katarighe 16:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems as far as I see. Theo10011 15:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to promote. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 05:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]