Meta:Requests for adminship/Reedy

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

• Reedy (talk • contribs • deleted user contributions • logs • block log • abuse log • CentralAuth • stalktoy)  Bureaucrats: user rights management.

Not ending before 29 November 2022 14:32 (UTC)

Mostly would be useful to have block rights to deal with spammers on Tech. --Reedy (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, obviously! --Jack Phoenix _(Contact) 16:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support, of course. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Strong support.~aanzx ^✉ _© 16:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Syunsyunminmin 🗨️talk 16:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Definetely trusted enough, but acitivity on Meta is quite low --Ameisenigel (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support, lgtm — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 22:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose due to limited activity on Meta, but I would support a limited adminship. --Rschen7754 01:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think activity on Meta is super relevant here, Reedy is well trusted (shell access for years) and familiar with global Wikimedia and local Meta-Wiki values/policies. Legoktm (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Legoktm (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support no brainer. I have no concerns about activity, that will self-manage.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support LGTM —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 10:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Trusted user. AlPaD (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support —MdsShakil (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Tmv (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support GeneralNotability (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 18:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support But just a question, why can't you do this via your existing privs, seems fair to assume maintenance of Tech can be included into your WMF account sysop mandate. Apart from this, no issues. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support LGTM, can be trusted --DannyS712 (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Activity is relevant in my view --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Unfortunately, I am oppose. Reedy is trusted and per nominationship, maybe limited adminship will be given. --Uncitoyen^talk 11:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose per above. Concerns with limited activity. OP hasn't made it clear why this is necessary anyways, given that they're a WMF employee -FASTILY 03:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Although some concerns were raised, overall the support is above the required 75%. --MF-W 10:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]