Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MGA73


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it .

MGA73
Final (90/8/12); ; Ended Tue, 06 Jul 2010 18:53:16 (UTC)

Nomination
– Admin on da-wiki and Commons, checkuser on da-wiki, OTRS voulenteer. Requesting temporary admin status to assist cleanup of backlog on en-wiki and Commons. MGA73 (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You can see more about my actions here:
 * http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=MGA73
 * http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=MGA73bot
 * http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=MGA73bot2

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I would like to help clear the backlog:
 * Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons - 20,060 files
 * Commons:Category:Files moved from en.wikipedia to Commons requiring review - 34,387 files
 * I'm aware that as an admin I will also be able to block users, protect articles, delete articles etc. But I do NOT intent to do any of these actions. If it is possible to gain acces to only images it would be just perfect. But as I said above I'm an admin on da-wiki and Commons so I can handle any admin tool.
 * The trick is that some transfers are not made correct. Therefore we need admins to help check these images. As long as the file excists on en-wiki any user can help check the transfer. But once the image is deleted only admins can check. So I often have to ask an en-admin to check for me. It would be easier for both me and the other admins if I can check the image myself.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I really like to cleanup. I have made thousands of edits on da-wiki and Commons "by hand" and much much more with my bots. Almost 128,000 edits on en-wiki with my bot related specific to images (license migration). Admins might find that I have some deleted usercontributions because I have worked on finding and tagging images as "NowCommons".


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I have not participate in edit conflicts on en-wiki. If I think that other users make wrong edits I suggest what they can do better.


 * Additional optional question from NativeForeigner
 * 4. If you wish to perform other administrative tasks on en-wiki, will you go through a second RfA to judge your ability to do that. (From what I understand you have no intention of doing so, but just to clarify to make the conditions fairly fixed, and garner a bit more confidence.)
 * A: Yes of course (also se answer to question 5).


 * Additional question from Phantomsteve:
 * 5. Since a steward cannot remove adminship without permission, and the procedures for de-sysopping on enwiki are not particularly reliable, would you consent to the condition that any administrator can indefinitely block you if you make any adminstrative action (regardless of what that action is) outside of the images areas you are asking to work in?
 * A: Yes. If an admin find my actions inappropriate and block me I would request a de-sysop on meta. I said somewhere below that “I will not send someone away if they seek an admin for urgent assistance”. If some user reports on IRC that someone uploaded child porn or vandalized 50 pages and request help then I would keep an eye on that request. If for some reason no other admin is online to do something I will act as an admin should do. However, I would leave a note on WP:AN and suggest that some other admin does a review.
 * Additional info: I did not mention testing in my namespace since I took it for an obvious thing that it is a good idea for new admins to test the tools etc. before they start to use them live. I'm not a new admin but every wiki has it own tools so I will ofcourse also do some testing. If the tools does not work in my namespace I will have to test on some of the images that should be deleted anyway.
 * Also, once a category (like Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of 15 June 2010) is empty it is not needed anymore and it can be deleted. I would not call that "outside of the images areas you are asking to work in" but if someone has good arguments why it is not a good idea for me to delete such empty categories please let me know.
 * During the cleanup I will probably come across some images that is both on Commons and en-wiki but where the file should not be deleted from en-wiki. Such images should probably have a NoCommons to inform users that the file is also on Commons but that it should not be deleted. If the image is protected then adding this template would be an admin action. As before if someone has good arguments not to add such templates please let me know.


 * Query from SilkTork:
 * 6. Your request for temporary adminship is unusual and moves this already awkward RfA into an unneccesary process discussion. There are a number of reasons why such a request may cause alarm, and I am concerned that it may give the impression of lack of commitment to this project and/or that as a candidate you are yourself unsure of your legitimacy to be an admin here. Are you aware that you don't need to ask permission to give up access to the tools, that you can resign at any time?
 * Would you either give people your thinking behind why you are asking for only temporary access to the tools and what you see as the limits of the temporary status (that you voluntarily resign after 6 months, when the backlog is down to x amount, etc), or refactor your self-nomination statement by removing the temporary request so that this becomes a less challenging RfA for people to consider?
 * A:Yes, I know I can desysop at anytime. For me it would be just fine if I got the flag without a time limit and if the general feeling is that I should remove the “temporary” part I would be willing to do so.
 * The only reason I added “temporary” is that the number of edits here would probably make me fail the normal requirements to become an admin here. By requesting the tools for a limited time only the community would get a chance to evaluate after x months how I did. If they liked my work they could give me other x months or more or say no thank you.
 * I think people are looking at your overall contributions which you have linked above via the toolsever, and are making their assessments of your trustworthiness from your actions there; and some people may be taking your enwiki bot's actions into account. People will be !voting support or oppose based on their assessment of your judgement and knowledge from those contributions. Some people will be uncomfortable with your low level of direct, non-automated, involvement in enwiki, but may balance that with your good works elsewhere within the overall project. There is no need to bring in another issue, that of asking people to support you as a temporary admin. If you wish to be temporary, then you can resign the mop at the end of this task, and ask for it back from a steward if you need to do more work here. The assessment people want to make here is the simple one of judging your suitability for the tools on enwiki. There's no need to confuse that with requesting that we grant you something that doesn't exist, and which creates philosophical questions about how a temporary sysop would work. It's up to you what you do, though if you read through people's comments (support, oppose and neutral, you'll note a number of people uncomfortable with the request that your admin status be temporary.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from True Pagan Warrior
 * 7. In light of the failure of WP:CDA and the recently closed optional reconfirmation attempt, what do you think set term limits for admins? Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Admins who have voluntarily agreed to a set term limit?
 * A: Sure. But it should not be needed because it is already written in this RfA :-) If the time limit is a problem see answer to question 6.


 * Question from User:B
 * 8. As a point of clarification, you are going to personally inspect and delete the images in question, not sic your bot on them, right? We have already overwhelmingly rejected the idea of adminbots deleting these because so many of them are ones that someone grabbed an image off the internet, slapped a tag on it, then a bot or newbie human moved it to Commons.  These images need to be individually looked at with some intelligence exercised.  Eg, if it's a web-resolution shot of a celebrity and 99% of the user's uploads have been deleted, it's probably not really PD-self. --B (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A: I will check all images myself before I delete them. It would be possible to let the bot delete the images I transfer to Commons myself as a part of the transfer process (I have used that when I transfered almost all images from da-wiki to Commons). But I will not do that here on en-wiki before I have been working on this project for some time and if I should later think it would be relevant I will start a request at Bots/Requests for approval first. And I will check images before I move them to Commons.

General comments

 * Links for MGA73:
 * Edit summary usage for MGA73 can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.''

Discussion
So basically, nothing went wrong with Lustiger Seth's adminship except possibly his RfA. In what sort of alternative reality is that an argument to oppose? There's just a handful of admins who know what they're doing with the spam lists and Lustiger Seth is one of them. That's a net positive period and that's what admin privileges are all about. An admin whose sole contributions consist of correctly deleting two pages a year is being helpful. Asking this admin to resign for inactivity is unhelpful. Come on Kudpung, see the light! Pichpich (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strictly as an FYI and not as any value-judgment on the past or present case, it should be noted the community has previously bestowed "provisional adminship" on at least one user who works solely with the spam blacklists. – xeno talk 18:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Strictly as an FYI and not as any value-judgment on the past or present case, I beg  anyone to spend two  minutes to  check  and see just what the en/Wiki benefitted from  conferiing  those provileges in  the above mentioned case.--Kudpung (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something. Did anything go wrong with Lustiger Seth's adminship? Pichpich (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from making  about  250 edits in  the two  years that  followed all  the fuss of his RfA, no.--Kudpung (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So the admin has caused no problems and is a net benefit, whereas the oppose voters caused a lot of fuss about nothing. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How is registering an opinion opposing an RfA raising a lot of fuss about nothing? I don't think he's qualified to be an admin on en-Wiki and stated my reasons.  Just because you support him doesn't mean everyone has to do so.   GregJackP    Boomer!  20:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Me? I haven't commented either way. Kudpung seems to be suggesting the problem with the aforementioned admin is the fuss, not the admin. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. I obviously misunderstood your comment. My apologies.  GregJackP    Boomer!  21:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clear up any possible misunderstanding: after going through the fuss of an RfA and being promoted, Lustiger Seth graced us with a max of about 230 edits/contribs in the almost two years that have followed. --Kudpung (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lustiger sought adminship to help with the spam blacklist (optimization, etc.) and that is exactly what he did/is doing. – xeno talk 01:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have in  no way whatsoever suggested that  Lustiger Seth  should resign. AGF and see your talk  page.  . --Kudpung (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relax. What I'm saying is that your complaints about Lustiger Seth are akin to complaints about worthless semi-active admins. In case you haven't noticed, we're short on admins and particularly short on admins working on this specific backlog. Your argument is that RfAs are only worth it if admins become workhorses. The end result of that attitude is less admins doing more and burning out. I suppose you'll see the light if you ever become an admin or if you're willing to re-read all the supports from longtime admins below. Pichpich (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit stats posted on talk -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 03:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support. Let me be the first.  This user has experience working with images, even if some of it isn't on en.WP.  Given the specialized nature of his request, I won't hold his lack of experience in other areas against him.  I think his adminship would be a net positive to the project, and I trust him when he says he'd stay away from other admin-related areas.  Shi  meru  18:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Über strong support:I've been working through it. There's a long way to go, and a lot of help would be really nice. As a checkuser on another wiki, the user can be trusted with not blocking/protecting, and only doing his job. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 18:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Here we have an experienced checkuser and sysop on sister projects who wants to help clear out a backlog that seems to be growing by the day. If this was an account with under 2,000 edits, I'd likely be under the oppose column, but on a project wide basis- we're all one project- the ser has the experience and trust level necessary. Courcelles (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) I agree with Shimeru. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support – I've seen Lustiger seth's RFA, and it was another example of a specialized request. As long as MGA73 does not use his tools for other purposes, and I trust him not to, as he is admin on two other projects, I don't see why not. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  19:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - I sure would like to see that backlog cleared. multichill (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. This user's permissions on other wikis, and the specialised nature of this request, mean I am perfectly comfortable supporting it. --Deskana (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I'd also like to see the backlog at least partially cleared. Pilif12p : Yo  19:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I don't see any problem with this one, he is obviously well trusted. Good luck to him and the long slog of that backlog!  Ron h jones (Talk) 19:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Thanks for offering to help out. Spartaz Humbug! 19:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) T. Canens (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) sure –  Tommy  [ message ] 21:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Seems like a very sensible request, and it would be great to have that backlog cleared. The candidate's clear experience and admin status on other projects lead me to have no worries about handing over a en-mop Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Support I only just heard of you the other day but you seem amazing so I will support you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) I have no problem with this.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come yell at me!) 20:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Hopefully this request will go very smoothly. Obviously the candidate's a trusted user; there really isn't a reason not to support.  ceran  thor 20:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you meant "there is no reason to oppose". :-) Pichpich (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support we don't do temporary adminships often, but that category is horrific (I have given up on most of the file backlogs), and he's a trusted user on various other WMF wikis. Definitely a net positive.  — fetch ·  comms   21:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Count me as a thumbs up, it is good to see this backlog getting attention. My thanks and very best wishes. Jusdafax  21:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as an obvious net positive for the project. The number of active admins is going down, the backlogs are going up and the en.wiki can use the extra help. Trusted user who definitely won't break the wiki and is extremely unlikely to break his pledge to stick to what he knows. Pichpich (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I do not automatically trust the judgement of all Arbs and Checkusers. However, I do trust everyone with those permissions not to deliberately harm the project. Couple that with the fact that this user clearly knows what they're doing in this area, and I unreservedly support. WFCforLife (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. He is a trusted user and clearly experienced on Commons matters. I see no reasons not to support. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support If he's an admin, checkuser, and OTRS volunteer on another wikipedia, I see no reason why he shouldn't be an admin here. RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 22:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I would like that backlog cleared. Décembër21st2012Freâk   Talk at 22:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 23:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - 'nuff said. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 23:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Support.  Backlog's over there, knock yourself out. -- &oelig; &trade; 23:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Thank you for volunteering to take on this job.  — Soap  —  00:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Support experienced admin, just not here on en-wiki, who is willing to help us out. Why would I not support? --  RP459  Talk/Contributions 01:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - I trust that he will stick to the clearing the backlogs, but I'm not worried about handing him all the tools, his blocks on da.wiki and the commons all look good. No real concerns were raised at his RfAs at da.wiki and the commons, and he was granted checkuser permission almost unanimously.  The combination of such a clean record as a sysop on the other projects, no problems here and an intention to help clear those backlogs compels me to support.   -- Lear's Fool (talk &#124; contribs) 01:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Why not?-- White Shadows stood on the edge 02:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - I second "'nuff said" Mlpearc   powwow  03:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - for a user who wishes only to contribute and make the encyclopedia better. I remind !voters to assume good faith, and that there is absolutely no history of privilege abuse from this candidate. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) I got a bit of an edit conflict here but to answer White Shadows' possibly rhetorical question there are 1077533 reasons why. This is total edit count of MGA73 plus the two bots he runs plus the above noted backlog. No complaints about the local edits. Trusted user? I would say so. Does he have a reason? Clearly, a yes. My only concern is that this is a request for temporary admin rights. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~talk to her~ 03:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Sure No objection from me, due to your experience in this line of work at other projects.  Them From  Space  03:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) Support, but conditionally: as long as the scope of admin work on en-wiki is limited to what's specified in the RfA rationale, I have ZERO problem extending courtesies to admins on other projects. Involvement in en-wiki specific administration would be a breach of the purpose for which this administrative bit is given. I know we don't have limited-duty administrators, but this is the perfect sort of rationale for one. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) the_undertow   talk  03:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) Support See no reason not to support experienced and trusted user willing to help. -  Begoon (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) Strong support. Daniel (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Fill your boots! Pedro : Chat  09:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) MGA73 is self-evidently capable of doing the (duller than watching paint dry) work described above and is willing to do it. We would be dim indeed to turn this generous offer down. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 12:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 25) --Stephen 13:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Trusted user. Bejinhan  Talk   14:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 27) Weak support I would just like to see more activity on Wikipedia. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 28) Strong Support. Good luck tackling that backlog, buddy! Laurinavicius (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 29) Strong Support As far as I can tell from my discussions with him, MGA73 is a helpful and trustworthy editor. - EdoDodo  talk 19:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. Why not? -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 21:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 31) With knowledge of his adminship on other projects.  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 03:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 32) Support as a specialist candidate. It would be nice to have more than two a few administrators endlessly working with media files, even if it is just dealing with Commons-related files. —  ξ xplicit  04:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 33) Support Definitely. Jafeluv (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Evidently already a highly trusted user. If he/she is willing to throw some Danish muscle behind the back log here then: Velkomst og tak! --RA (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. Glad to support again. I'm positive and sure MGA would be an asset. I just wish it wasn't temporarily :-) -- Kanonkas :  Talk  09:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. Of course. He has good experience and is a trusted Wikipedian. He deservres it. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 37) Support Completely untrustable. Will abuse the tools because he only wants them temporarily. Is trying to sneak in the back door. Since we can't de-admin him, only he can do so voluntarily, I'm terribly frightened about the long term prospects of this user having administrator rights with which I'm sure he'll demolish the encyclopedia. We will of course have no recourse to stop his damaging ways. And holy 'save page' button Batman! He has less than 1400 edits!!!! We'd be INSANE to grant this user rights here! Somebody file a request at Commons to de-admin him. This madness must stop! Save the wiki! Oppose MGA73 today! --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong section. Shouldn't this be under Oppose? I like pie it tastes good  04:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I put it precisely where I wanted it to be. You'll note that I did type "Support". --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Outrageous - it's just this kind of sarcasm that makes me just want to..., well, makes me want to...ermm...congratulate you really. They say sarcasm doesn't work well on the internet, but this certainly made me smile, and, hey........comments in the Support section - you could start a trend -  Begoon (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Trusted admin of other projects, and these areas here SERIOUSLY need work, major backlogs. — raeky ( talk 18:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as he intends to do useful work.--Milowent (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support can always use another person in the backlogs!   Mauler90  talk 19:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support But can we move this spam filter thingy to Meta or something?  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  19:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support The Danes trust him, can't see any reason to oppose (and for some reason I feel very bad about Craftyminion's stupid comments, which I still can't fathom out if they were intended to be jokes)Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support He is already an admin for other projects, and even though he hasn't made many edits to English Wikipedia, it seems like we can trust him. Just up the amount of English edits! Coasterlover1994 (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Oh why not, it's less work for everyone else at the end of the day... Orphan Wiki  00:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Although the user's adminship will only be temporary, Wikipedia can always use help on its backlogs. MGA73 can be trusted to be an administrator. -- Ha  dg  er  01:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - on pl:wiki it took us almost a year to go from 10 000 files to just about 1 000. Anyone willing to dive into heap of transferred/transferrable/questionable/unknown files should get admin rights. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Admin tools are there to be used for the good of the project. The granting of this request, with the promised restrictions, will do that.  Ty  02:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Yes_check.svg  Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, MGA73. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Support' Not seeing any red flags. --Banana (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Moderate Support Even though I think admins should become admins only if they will be using all admin tools, I don't see any major issues. And Craftyminion's twisted comments make me feel kinda bad for him. I like pie it tastes good  04:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support. But don't feel bad for me. Even if it was the worst "attack" I have had so far it has not scared me away. To be honest I feel sadder for the Germans. It is scary that there are (still) someone out there who hates them so much for what happened ages ago. --MGA73 (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And quite sad that there are people here who can't tell the difference between da-wiki and de-wiki -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support No issues at all.  Aiken   &#9835;   13:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Based on his work at Commons. Juliancolton (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per responses to q. 4 and 5. I trust MGA73 to use all the tools. MGA73 will know better than many of us that admins use the tools they need to get the job done, to be cautious, and to seek review. TFOWR 19:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support User has admin experience in other projects, 'nuff said.-- Forty two  What colour is the bikeshed?  20:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support User could clearly help with the task and is extraordinarily experienced with the duties they wish to take up. -- ۩ M ask  23:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support—net positive, no concerns. Airplaneman   ✈  04:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - MGA73 has ample knowledge of the correct use of the tools, and has shown that he is trustworthy and sensible....what more is required ? Peripitus (Talk) 12:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I share some of the concerns about lack of enwiki track record. The promise to stick to images is, as noted unenforceable, but less of a concern that it might be in other cases. IIRC, we once had a candidate with strong qualifications in one area, but problems in another, and there was debate about a promise to stay away from that area. I see that as different—an unenforceable commitment to stay area from an area where there are known problems is quite different than a similar commitment where there are no known issues, simply a lack of a clear track record. We do have, albeit imperfectly, a mechanism to address problems. It is painful enough that I don't wish to take a chance when there are red flags, but not so painful that I'd pass on this candidate, on the extremely low chance of rogue behavior. That coupled with experience as an admin, so there isn't even the possibility of accidentally using tools in ignorance, persuades me that the legitimate concerns are not compelling. On the positive side, there is an enormous need, and a willing volunteer. I say let the cleanup begin.--  SPhilbrick  T  14:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I see no problem with a user who has demonstrated trustworthiness in more than one area of wikipedia being given the tools to do something which needs doing. --Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 15:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Another Dane here. Let the record show that I don't think highly of da-wiki at all. It is riddled with BLP violations, copyvios and NPOV violations. However, MGA73 is certainly not to blame for that. His work there as well as on Commons has showed that he is absolutely capable of performing the tasks he is requesting the tools for and I'm sure he will make an excellent administrator here. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Has clear ideas for how they can help, no red flags, no reason to oppose, good reasons to support. Townlake (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - I see no reason to oppose this request.  GB fan  talk 13:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Support MGA73 is a trustworthy user and has admin experience elsewhere. Rje (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) I agree with most of the opposing and neutral rationales, and I'm impressed with the rational (no "e") and even gentle way that they make their case ... still, anyone who can garner this kind of fervent and solid support despite the community's basic position that we're not looking for temporary admins has I think proved that they're not going to be just a temporary or second-rate admin. Full support. - Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) There has traditionally been caution applied to nominations from people with little experience on enwiki, and less (or no) allowance given to work or status on other wikis, however this candidate has strong credentials on da-wiki and Commons, is clearly keen on cross-wiki work, and has a bot which has worked intensively and succesfully on enwiki, with minor issues quickly and politely sorted out by MGA73. The request for temporary status is an error, but it's a small one, and I feel the candidate will be a benefit to enwiki.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Support as long as he's amicable to us taking them away if he misbehaves.  Mr. R00t    Talk  21:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) support both temporary and permanent adminship. so  nia ♫♪ 05:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Support I worked with this user a lot on the Commons and OTRS and he knows what he is doing. I trust him with the tools, especially when it comes to image work (which is really needed on this project). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Being in a quite similar situation as MGA73, I am sure that en.wikipedia could benefit from providing him the tools. --Leyo 19:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - a trusted user on other projects wants to help out here. Why not take advantage of that? Also per Hammersoft — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  22:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Hopefully this will be a plus...Modernist (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Obviously trustworthy. I hardly see how someone with a specific goal for being a volunteer sysop is a bad thing.  Steven Walling  00:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) Support wiooiw (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) Support No evidence of incivility, has been given tools on other areas too, so why not? Minima  c  ( talk ) 18:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - I have no concerns about the editor's motives, but I think experience on the wiki they want adminship on is necessary, and because there is no temporary adminship, I cannot support. I'm also bothered by the provisional adminship notion, and while that ship has sailed, I don't think we need a precedence of it. Shadowjams (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I cannot support giving administratorship to users for only a single purpose. Immunize Contact me Contributions  21:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose  - on  technicalities rather than what appear to be the (self)nominee's genuine reasons for request. Experience on the en.Wikipedia goes before experience and/or privileges on  other Wikimedia, which  clearly  excercise very  different  criteria of quality, and while a high  edit score is not  a qualification, only just  over 1,000 over a period of nearly  2 years does not  demonstrate consistency or knowledge of our processes. Nor does it convince of a future, more intense  committment  (although  this is also  not  an exigency). Only  237 edits have been made to  file space, a number which  many  'non janitor' editors casually  make on  the fly while contributing in  other areas. AFAIK we neither have provision  for temporary  adminship of this kind, nor  admin  tasks dedicated to  different  areas (except  perhaps minor privileges for for reviewing, rollbacking, account creation, etc., for example), and admins are at  least  expected (but  not  obliged) to  get  involved in  a variety of tasks. I would most  likely  support a new RfA with  a truly  significant  increase in  contribs, but  probably  not  in  under 12 months from  now. --Kudpung (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC).
 * I know that some things work different on en-wiki than on da-wiki or Commons and therefore I try to focus my work and stay away from areas I might not know as good yet. I also try to make as many edits as possible with my bot (127,895 edits). I think that concentrated work and focus reduces the number of errors and increases the amount of work I can make. Also see comment below. --MGA73 (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't usually  reply  to  comments on  my  !voting - Support votes of course never get  a comment ;)  - but  to  elaborate on  my  statement, I  honestly  do  not  think  you  need the tools, at  least  not  any  more than  I  do. I'm sure there is a lot of really excellent  work  you  can do  cleaning  up  the en.Wiki without  the admin  tools. The only  way  you  can get  any  of them is to  be an admin, and for that, in  my  opinion,  you  are not  yet  ready. I don't  see any  problem  in  showing  us a bit  more first of what  you  can and could do, before rushing  into  an RfA.--Kudpung (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point on support votes but one of them said it was dull work to clear the backlog - I would like to say "No, it's not - it is fun!". If you can help me convince the admins about that it would prove you right that I do not need the tools and furthermore I would be forever grateful :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I  have added a comment  to User:Xenot's top  note. Unless I  have missed something  extremely  important  and crucial (in  which  case I  humbly  apologise), the one case of exception  quoted by  Xenot - now that  I  have got round to  investigating it - is practically the entire reason  for my  oppose !vote.--Kudpung (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per my admin criteria I won't vote for someone who promises not to exercise certain admin powers; that doesn't make me feel more comfortable with giving you the mop, it makes me more nervous.  Also you don't have nearly enough work on here for me to judge how you would perform as an admin.  I know you just want to help, but there are some other work backlogs on Wikipedia that need to be worked on that don't require admin rights.  I would recommend building a reputation here before doing another RfA.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I know that I have too few edits on en-wiki for you to judge how I would perform as a "normal" admin. Before I started working on Commons I was one of the most active admins on da-wiki and I still know how to be a Wikipedia admin. I think that it is not just a simple "delete action" for a good admin to delete an article because it may be a big deal for the user that created the article. So I think that if you delete pages or block users (or just revert changes) you should be prepared to spend time to explain the user why and as an active admin you should also expect that users start asking questions on your talk page. I LOVE to fight vandalism and help users and I will help anyone that comes by my talk page and I will not send someone away if they seek an admin for urgent assistance. But I hope that if I try to focus on one particular backlog I may make a greater difference there. Therefore I made this request to be able to (un)delete images. It may take months or years to clean up the backlog of files here (and on Commons) at the current speed (right now the backlog just keeps growing). For months I and some few other admins on Commons has tried to persuade some en-wiki admins to help but not many volunteer. --MGA73 (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand why you would say "I wont do x, y and z" but I can't support someone who says that from the begining, because its so hard to recall and admin and there's really no way to enforce RfA promises. If there was a way to give you temporary or limited admin status, I'd be all for it because someone obviously needs to take care of the backlogs. But en-Wikipedia is big and complicated, I don't think we should give admin rights to someone who doesn't have experience on this wiki.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 11:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose On my principles I cannot support this type of RfA asking for only certain admin powers. Polargeo (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Temporary adminship? Unthinkable. Either you're depraved enough for full adminship or you should sod back off to the ghastly wogpedia you came from. Frankly all those who've !voted in support of this appalling request should blocked in name of wikidecency! Crafty (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you on about Crafty? This is perhaps the least acceptable RFA oppose rationale I have seen in my 4 years as an active contributor to the project. Please refactor immediately. Spartaz Humbug! 17:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably needs removing. GTD 17:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Collaborator eh? And you call yourself an Englishman. Crafty (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Craftminion was blocked 2 weeks for this "vote". Spartaz Humbug! 17:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - while I'm sure his motivations are good, I do not feel that it is appropriate to grant what is in effect a lifetime grant of power that is realistically without a good method to appeal or recall to one that has not worked extensively on this wiki. No articles have been created here, and there is no valid reason IMO.  Crafty, your comments are uncalled for, and I fully support Spartaz's comments in that regard.    GregJackP    Boomer!  17:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I consider this prime facie evidence of power hunger 92.48.84.227 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, open proxies can't !vote. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Craftyminion (although the wording of his oppose has caused an enormous kerfuffle) and others; there should be no "Admin Lite™" position. Either the community trusts with all the tools or it doesn't. What tools the admin chooses to use is then up to them.  pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 22:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, is there an actual reason not to trust this user with all the tools? Or is this a purely philosophical oppose?  Shi  meru  02:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Pablo X, but I think a lot of the opposes are "philosophical" opposes in the sense that they are concerned with the implications of this sort of RfA, and that they are also being ideologically consistent with uncountable numbers of hard-fought RfAs that center on a handful of a particular editor's edits, out of thousands, sometimes based on very small objections. That another editor was trusted by another wiki project is certainly a good thing, but the various wiki projects maintain their autonomy and those differences can be stark at times (flagged revisions, for example). So it's not unreasonable to ask that someone have a history on the particular project. For me at least, it's philosophical, but without some pragmatic implication, I doubt I, or any of us would be opposing. Shadowjams (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that most of the opposes are philosophical in nature. However, this one appears to suggest that MGA73 should not be trusted by the community, so I'm left to wonder whether there's a reason to make that implication, or whether it's simply a poorly-stated piece of rhetoric.  Shi  meru  09:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All supports or opposes should Philosophically based. You don't just vote from your gut do you?  Also, it's a pretty low bar to say "do I have a reason not to trust this person".  You should have positive reasons to trust the person, not just lack of negatives.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 23:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Or maybe a poorly-read one. We have had RfA's in the past where candidates have stated that they will avoid specific areas - closing AfDs for instance. There is no implication that MGA73 should not be trusted by the community, but I disagree with the concept of adminship being granted on the basis that the candidate avoid certain tasks.  pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 15:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you'd said "Either the commmunity trusts with all the tools or it doesn't," so your oppose would seem to mean that it shouldn't. Thank you for clarifying that you have no such basis for opposing this candidate.  Shi  meru  18:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a comment on the process (which is a process for selecting admins, not conditional admins), not the candidate. No criticism of the specific candidate was given. Your reading is wrong.  pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 19:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for further clarifying that you oppose the process, and not the candidate, in this case. Shi  meru  21:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, glad you've finally got it.  pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 08:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose giving "temporary admin status" as I don't think we should go down the road of having different kinds of admins. On the other hand, I would support making this user a regular admin. Please move this comment to the the support section if that request is made. Jonathunder (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * #Neutral:Moral support, but oppose, so i guess that makes a neutral ;). I like your work, but maybe you should wait a little bit. Pilif12p : Yo  18:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)  Moved to support  Pilif12p :  Yo  19:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral: I'm really glad your willing to clear the backlog but your experiance on the english wikipedia is lacking.  -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Neutral Alot of potential, but it is too soon, although I would happily support a limited adminship dealing with just the photo backlog. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral if only because I wish there were a way he could accomplish his goal without being granted full adminship. I would oppose if I weren't very confident that he will do exactly what he says he's going to.  Keepscases (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral - like it or not, we grant adminship forever at the moment. I'm pondering how best to ask an optional question to find out exactly why "temporary admin" status is being requested and how exactly we're supposed to grant such a thing; maybe someone who has already had his or her coffee can take a stab for me?--~TPW 10:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at meta:Steward requests/Permissions/Approved temporary to see how temporary adminship works on other wiki's. multichill (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's helpful. I would probably support if en.wiki had such a process, but at the moment I'm not clear why someone would ask for something that we don't offer to grant.  I'd prefer to lead with the horse, not the cart; if we need temp admins let's set up a process for them.--~TPW 13:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral per Qwertyus. A bit more experience on en.wiki would be great.  •• Pep per ••  15:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I would have voted oppose, but you are an admin on DaWiki and Commons, which is a big plus. I would like to see more experience here, so it evens out to neutral. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral The whole idea of adminship as a temporary measure for one task seems to me slightly wrong. (thats just a preference however and is not based on the editor themselves). If the editor wants to the tools permanetly I will gladly re assess and likely support. Otherwise I think i prefer to obstain for the time being. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that "temporary" is a strange thing for an admin because it could be 2 weeks or 2 years. And if I do a good job as an admin why put a limit to it? Well, the reason I wrote "temporary" was because I hoped it would be possible to reduce the backlog to an acceptable level in perhaps 6 months (I hope others will help me ofcourse). After that my assistance was not needed anymore and if it still was needed then community would have a chance to decide if I should be granted a new period (or without a time limit if community prefered that). --MGA73 (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral veering towards support The work on dawiki and commons is good, but as enwiki does not have 'temporary' admin positions, or an ability to limit the tools which an admin uses, I am a bit uneasy with supporting. I'll probably change this neutral to a firm support or oppose in a few days, but at the moment, I'm still a-thinking --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 05:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I'm not comfortable with the  "temporary" duration request. While MGA73 undertakes useful activities, he doesn't demonstrate enough constructive interaction with other editors.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  14:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Pending answers to Qs 4 and 5. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it took me a while to notice these questions. I will pay better attention to the questions now. --MGA73 (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) This RfA throws up awkward questions. Our RfA process, and all our guidance tools, are geared for granting the tools to editors to work on the en.wiki based on evidence that they understand the ways of en.wiki and have experience here that people can examine and judge if the person is trustworthy. We traditionally have not given credit to people for off-wiki tasks or Real Life occupations or status on other internet sites. This candidate has experience of other wikis that come under the scope of Wikimedia Foundation, and evidence of trustworthiness in those wikis - though, again, we have traditionally not granted admin status on en.wiki based on a person having admin status elsewhere. The candidate has made things more awkward by asking for a temporary status, something we don't do, and that request in itself throws doubts over the candidate's judgement and attitude. The candidate's nomination statement is very short, which is not encouraging.
 * However, it appears that the main reason why people are willing to say yes is that the candidate has offered to clean up a backlog area - and I can see the temptation in that. There's a "common sense" feel about this that appeals. However we are perhaps about to set up (or confirm, seeing as this sort of thing has happened before) a precedent in which someone can request and gain admin status here in order to clean up a backlog, even though they don't meet the usual requirements for admin status. I'd like to see people gain admin status on each wiki according to the local requirements of that Wiki, and not piggy-back on status gained on other wikis or because there is a handy expediency (such as a pressing desire to reduce a backlog). So I have process objections, and perhaps a few questions for MGA73, while I think this over.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally I don't go by edit count and I shouldn't now either but what I am thinking right now is: Anyone could claim that they would just be clearing the backlog and get supported. Than a potential vandal (smart, but still a vandals) could come along and get elected through that and than use his admin tools to blow up (not quite literally) Wikipedia. So for now neutral until someone convinces me otherwise...  Mr. R00t    Talk  16:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the fact that he has already handled well sysop tools on two other WMF projects, as well as the CheckUser tool, which is much more dangerous than any buttons that come with the sysop toolkit? Courcelles (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully understand the concern that some users have: "Is this just a trick to get the tools?" I think the general problem is that it is to hard to de-sysop admins that does a bad job. I asked for a temporary admin status because I thought it would help some users accept a "new user" to get the tools.
 * But to follow the question is it really likely that some user would spend several hours doing 38,715 manual edits and 984,583 edits with a bot + a lot of admin actions in two projects just to be able to be an admin at en-wikipedia with the single purpose of doing som bad edits? I will probably make a few mistakes just like every other admin but hopefully not as many as other "new admins" since I'm admin on two other projects. --MGA73 (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of him having CheckUser. Moving to Support.  Mr. R00t    Talk  21:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - User seems genuine and I think he would use the tools responsibly, but given that specific admin tools can't be handed out, I think the user needs to demonstrate knowledge and mastery in more areas. Maybe with a little more consistent experience with en-wiki I'd feel more comfortable. All that said, I don't think I'd be upset if this user is given the tools. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 13:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.