Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Petr Matas 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing as unsuccessful, insufficient support--Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Petr Matas 2

Vote

RfP scheduled to end after 21 January 2015 11:51 (UTC)

• Petr Matas (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)

After one month, I am retrying my previous request. In the meanwhile I've been continuing the gadget development and fixing: I have provided fixes, workarounds or improvements to Merge, AuthorityControl and Move and I have written the gadgets advertised in the latest Status update. To work more efficiently, I need a write access to the gadgets. I also want to help with fulfilling protected edit requests, especially those concerning scripts. I promise I won't use the permission for anything else. Petr Matas 11:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC). Note: I advertised this in Project chat. Petr Matas 12:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Votes

1.  Weak support ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 17:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
2.  Weak oppose to early, too eager. You're transcluded on Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator twice! Just give it some time, do good stuff, come back in 6 months and I bet it's all green. Multichill (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
3.  Weak oppose I would really like to support this RfA, but requesting adminship a month after your last RfA is too soon and shows you're too eager for the tools. Wait at least three months and around 2,000+ edits and you'll probably pass. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
4. Support, looks okay to me. No big deal. Vogone (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
5.  Oppose - Sorry Petr, you are impatient. Why? Give us a little more time and more of your contributions. I'll guess you'll get a clear vote. Regards --Succu (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
6.  Weak support per last time. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 23:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
7.  Oppose per above; also posting about it at project chat shows that you are not familiar with what constitutes canvassing. If you want to test gadgets, use the test wiki.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
8.  Weak oppose per AmaryllisGardener and Jasper Deng. --Ricordisamoa 02:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
9.  Oppose Eurodyne (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
10.  Weak support JAn Dudík (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
11.  Oppose--DangSunM (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
12.  Oppose Not even looking at the other possible reasons to oppose, your last RFA wasn't even a month ago: Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Petr Matas --Rschen7754 18:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
13.  Oppose Rzuwig^► 20:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• @Succu: Because gadget development takes at least a half more time with read-only access. Petr Matas 21:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  So you intend to experiment with your new tools? Bad idea. --Succu (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  Indeed, remember https://test.wikidata.org exists. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 01:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  It's not experimenting in the sense that Succu refers to, but rather being able to do things directly, of course only if I know what I am doing. As far as I have seen, this is how WD admins do it concerning scripts. For example, when I thought that adding one or two gadget dependencies could resolve an issue with it, I would just add them to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition and see if it works. That's not something that could break things, but having to do it using inclusion from my common.js is a waste of time: Create a copy in user space, disable the gadget in preferences, include it in common.js (see its history), load its dependencies, do the modification, test, remove the inclusion, enable it in preferences, request edit. Uff... Additionally, when working on an already broken gadget, there are not many things which can go wrong. And if they do, I will revert a few seconds later.

  Maybe I should request adminship at test? It would be beter to have it here as well, but there it is a must-have for me, isn't it? You are right, I am impatient. Is it really that wrong? Petr Matas 18:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  Patience is a key attribute people look for in admins. Yes, I agree adminship on the test wiki would be better for your purposes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  Okay :) Petr Matas 07:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  Hereby I am requesting adminship on test.wikidata.org. Or is there any more appropriate place for the request? Petr Matas 08:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  @John F. Lewis: Vogone (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

   Done John F. Lewis (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you! Petr Matas 06:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.