Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators

Change links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Revision as of 21:59, 26 June 2006 by Googl (talk | changes) (→[[User:Freshstart|Freshstart]]: just chage sig)

An administrator is also called a sysop. You can add requests to this page for things that can only be done by sysops.

If you want a page deleted, say so on the Wikipedia:Proposed deletions page.

Sysops are allowed to do some things that other users are not. This is for performance reasons (it would make the website too slow to let everyone do it). It is also for security reasons (because they are trusted). If you want to become one, please say so on this page.

Anyone who has been adding to this website for a while is allowed to be an administrator. Jimbo Wales, the founder of the Wikimedia Foundation, said "this should be no big deal".

Sysops do not have any special authority. They are equal to everybody else.

Things administrators can do:

See also: Adminstrator logs - Blocks, Page protection, Deletions

A bureaucrat is a slightly higher administrative level that can perform a few additional functions. Bureacrats can give administrator or bureaucrat status to other users following a successful request on this page. Bureaucrats can also help users who want to change user names. Requests for name changes should be made directly to the talk page of one of the listed bureaucrats.

See also: Bureaucrat logs - User rights, User rename


List of administrators

An automated list of accounts with admin status is available at Special:Listadmins.

Active

  1. aflm - (email)
  2. Angela - (email)
  3. Archer7 - (email)
  4. Blockinblox - (email)
  5. Freshstart - (email)
  6. Netoholic (bureaucrat) - (email)
  7. Ricky81682 - (email)

Inactive

  1. Brion Vibber (developer) - (email)
  2. Cprompt - (email)
  3. Menchi - (email)
  4. Mero - (email)
  5. Optim - (email)
  6. SimonMayer (bureaucrat) - (email)
  7. Tango - (email)

Nominations and requests to be an administrator/bureaucrat

Archive of older requests for administrator status

Billz

I have withdrawn my application until the three months observation period is complete. Thanks. Billz 15:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations and requests to CheckUser status

The following requests are for CheckUser status. This will give them access to confidential IP and user information, mainly for checking sockpuppets and finding vandal IP addresses from usernames. 25 support votes are needed for each user, 2 users must be elected or there will be no CheckUsers. CheckUsers will then have to be requested from a steward.

Freshstart

Even if I am not actively editing, I am usually monitoring Simple about 12 hours/day, and I have handled personal information, from payroll records (including Social Security numbers) to credit card numbers with expiration dates, for three different employers, so I am very experienced with safe-guarding sensitive personal information. I think that's a good combination for helping with this task. Freshstart 00:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Strong Support. Freshstart is one of our most active contributors, and someone we can no doubt trust with confidential information. CheckUsers are needed in many vandal attacks now (thanks to the Vandal Tribune), and Freshstart is most likely going to be there to sort things out when needed. Archer7 21:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Excellent active contributor, good admin from what I've seen, and worthy of our trust on this. --Cromwellt|talk 04:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Strong support. Due to his actions regarding a recent RfD (a certain "AIDS" band), he has shown that he gets others' opinions if there might be a question, even if he is in the right. This means we can be sure that he would not abuse this privilege, and would ask the other Checkuser admin(s) on any questionable issues. Excellent user and admin. Definitely deserves our trust. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 03:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Great admin that we can certainly trust with checkuser. -- Psy guy 04:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Trustworthy editor. DaGizza 05:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support -- Netoholic @ 04:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Naconkantari 21:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Great member of Wikipedia and I would trust this user with the CheckUser tool. Billz 14:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support: Your work will take down a lot of vandals. --Slgrandson 18:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SupportSarahgal 18:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --M7 11:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. -- aflm (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose.: I think this user cannot be trusted with powers like these that need to be kept in check. --Sutodaang 22:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC) - user blocked for trolling on other pages, must assume this is a joke. Archer7 | talk 15:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support googl t 21:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archer7

I think that I can now be trusted with CheckUser information, and if I'm not online, I'm just an email away.

  1. Strong Support. Archer7 has been active, knowledgable, and diligent in dealing with sustained vandal attacks, especially when they're targeting Wikipedians (rather than the Wiki in general), such as Hailey last month and Reri/Billz this month. Clearly Simple would gain by Archer7 having this tool to help him deal with these particularly vicious vandals. Simple is getting increasingly active, and we should have the ability to police things ourselves, rather than having to rely on stewards that are mostly active on other Wikis. Freshstart 00:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Very good worker, seems to be a good admin, worthy of trust. --Cromwellt|talk 04:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC) I'm changing this to strong support. Excellent contributor and admin, who won't abuse his rights or let others abuse theirs either. Certainly worthy of additional trust. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 02:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Great admin that we can certainly trust with checkuser. -- Psy guy 04:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Trustworthy editor. DaGizza 05:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Naconkantari 21:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Being admin is doing the right thing. This also involves standing up for users rights, even against a peer. Archer7 therefore has my support. -- Eptalon 10:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Neutral:Vote changed till role in edit conflict is fully clarified. -- Eptalon 11:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. -- aflm (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. He has been very immature during the recent dispute in my honest opinion. -- Billz 15:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support -- I have checked his edits and do not believe that he has been immature. Sorry for my previous accusations. Billz 12:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It would indeed be a sad day in WP history if a dangerous rogue user like Archer7 were given checkuser powers. I strongly oppose this nomination with all the vehemence I can duly summon. --Sutodaang 22:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC) - user blocked for trolling on other pages, must assume this is a joke. I certainly hope so. Archer7 | talk 15:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic

Since CheckUser permission requires 25 votes, I'd like to throw my name in as an option. I'm quite familiar with CheckUser itself, as well as other tools for dealing with persistent vandals. I don't like how some of our frequent contributors are being harrassed, nor how Simple tends to be a refuge for troublemakers who've been banned from the main English Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 04:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Oppose due to recent abuses of power. Archer7 | talk 10:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Support due to comments above. Neutral Archer7 | talk 21:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC) -- I have no doubts about you being very experienced at dealing with vandals and you've certainly proved yourself to be trustworthy, but your recent inactivity on Simple makes me unsure about supporting you. I think that users with the CheckUser permission need to be around here a lot to sort out any urgent problems with persistant vandals. Archer7 | talk 08:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. First, he has seniority over all us newer admins, and second, this is a power that should be used quite sparingly anyway IMO, so I don't think it's as if the admin who is so endowed needs to be here constantly at all times to "check" everybody on an "urgent" basis... He's certainly here often enough to find out if some recent vandal / sock really needs checking, it's not that "urgent" a thing is it?... Blockinblox 22:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say he has seniority over us, and I'm sure he would agree that he's on the same level as anyone else here. But I've found myself wanting a CheckUser very often recently and I think he maybe just wouldn't have the time. Vandals can destroy our encyclopedia very rapidly with a large number of sockpuppets on a dynamic IP. I'm not against Netoholic on this, I'm just not exactly for him either. Archer7 | talk 15:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that you've got the wrong idea about what CheckUser role means, how often it should be used, and more importantly, how that information is used. While I may currently not be as active as I used to be. I am perfectly content letting the more active people like Freshstart use the tool. I just firmly do not believe that having only two people with access to this is the best thing. If only Freshstart and Archer7 were given access, and one of them became temporarily involved in other pursuits as I have or perhaps left permanently... I do not want to see the tool (and the logs) accessible by only one remaining person if it can be avoided. Just as Archer7 says above in his nomination... I'm just an email away. -- Netoholic @ 17:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If on person leaves or becomes inactive the CheckUser status is revoked and given to someone else according to Meta. I wouldn't mind more people having the tool as you make a very good point, but I think stewards would be uneasy about giving confidential user info to more than two on such a small wiki. If they would let us have three I think you would be a great choice. Archer7 | talk 18:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at meta:CheckUser#Removal of access, automated removal is done after one full year. Wiki's are allowed to vote to remove access or to grant additional accesses. In fact, I note that on that page, the list of CheckUsers shows that more sites have three people with access, than those with only two. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I'll change my vote. You are definitely someone we can trust, and you've sorted out any issues I have. Archer7 | talk 18:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: I am aware of what i am doing here, but I expect correct behaviour of the admin team towards all users (Including vandals). CheckUser more than anything is about trusting those weho get the privilege to not abuse the power they will have. Without a clearing up of what happenend (see Archer7 blocking below), I do at the moment not think Nethoholic is ready for this. Sorry. -- Eptalon 10:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose: Per Archer7. Someone who abuses the power he already has should not be given more. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 02:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. -- aflm (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose. This rogue user must not under any circumstances be given any more powers with which to terrorize the Simple Wikipedia --Sutodaang 22:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC) - user blocked for trolling on other pages, must assume this is a joke. Archer7 | talk 15:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current issues and requests

/Current issues and requests archive 1

Users can contact sysops on this page to ask them to protect pages. Requests for deletion should be made on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion and requests for blocking on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress.

All sysops should watch this section for issues that sysops must be aware of, and for news about policy changes affecting sysops.

June 2006

User:Reri Horlockon has admitted to being the 63.19 vandal. Can't say I'm that surprised, more impressed that a vandal would spend so much time vandalising himself. Has promised to continue vandalising under sockpuppets. Archer7 | talk 10:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 2006

April 2006

  • Does anyone have any idea what's going on with the new usernames that are being created with random numbers. See the user creation log to see what I mean, none of them are contributing. Archer7 16:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should get a steward to authorized a check user to see if they might be coming from the same or similar IPs. The name is not substantive and should probably be blocked with a message asking the user request name change from a bcrat. -- Psy guy 16:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They violate en's Wikipedia:Username, I'm blocking the following infinitely:
User:206501450
User:206501155
User:206509061
User:206501925
User:206500369 Archer7 16:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators&oldid=156033"