Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jamesday (talk | contribs) at 14:49, 14 January 2004 (support mydogategodshat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Here you can make a request for adminship. See Wikipedia:Administrators for what this entails and for a list of current admins.

Guidelines

Current Wikipedia policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. Most users seem to agree that the more administrators there are the better.

Wikipedians are more likely to support the candidacy of people who have been logged-on contributors for some months and contributed to and created a variety of articles over that time without often getting into conflicts with other users.

If you want to nominate yourself to become an administrator, it is recommended that you wait until you have been a user for a reasonable period of time - long enough to show yourself to be trustworthy (on the order of months). Any user can comment on your request—they might express reservations (because, for example, they suspect you will abuse your new-found powers, or if you've joined very recently), but hopefully they will approve and say lovely things about you.

After a 7 day period for comments, if there is general agreement that someone who requests adminship should be given it, then a developer will make it so and record that fact at Wikipedia:Recently created admins.

Nominations for adminship

Note: Nominations have to be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, please also leave a message on their talk page and inform them about their listing on this page, and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.

Please place new nominations at the top

Mydogategodshat

There is no question of Mydo lacking the credentials requisite for sysophood. I hope the people who cast a spurious affect on the assosciations that were tortously manufactured regarding hir name, please recollect the motto of the order of the garter: "Honi soit quy mal y pensé" (or something like that; in any case I beleive it translates "Nasties to those who think nasties."). The fact remains that to be insulted by his username, the insulted party has to do the vast majority of the shoveling. Have a bit of perspective, and bring this unquestionably qualified person onboard! -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 13:27, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support without question. Secretlondon 13:32, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • I cannot support a user that sports a username that manages to combine blasphemy and coprophagia: not as an admin - much as I like and respect the person. He is an excellent contributor and, given a more suitable-for-children username, I would support him without reservation. But not with that name. Remember Tokerboy's example. Tannin 13:40, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support unreservedly. Bmills 13:57, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --snoyes 16:20, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • One who goes out of his way to be offensive should not be an administrator Pollinator 16:27, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Long overdue. His integrity toward his principles the first time around indicates to me a level of self-control rare in 'pedia admins. - Hephaestos 16:36, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unless he changes his username to something confidence-inspiring. It's not enough to be trustworthy, one must also inspire trust. Moreover, this will set a bad precedent because the next nominee will have an even more offensive name. Suppose some otherwise well-behaved Baptist fundamentalist shows up as user:GodHatesFags? --Uncle Ed 16:44, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm a Baptist fundamentalist, should I change my name? silsor 22:48, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - By not changing his name, despite adminship support if he did, he has demonstrated that he won't compomise his ideals in order to gain more power, and is therefore unlikely to be corrupted by the power. I would consider this a good quality in administrators. Κσυπ Cyp   17:33, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Does this mean that courtesy is not a value held by Wikipedia? Ed offers a good illustration of precedent setting by this vote (although Baptist "fundamentalists" tend to be more courteous than the population as a whole).Pollinator 22:35, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I have previously opposed this nomination and I still feel uncomfortable with Mydog's choice of user name. But I feel that the choice to keep the name was made for valid reasons and have no doubt that the name is not intended to be offensive - sannse 22:14, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. silsor 22:21, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I am quite sure the objections to the name are being made in good faith, but I consider them misguided. Morwen 22:46, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I encourage him to change his name, but I do not think sysophood will change anything. The naming issue is distinct from the sysop issue. Tuf-Kat 22:56, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not entirely. We vote to make somebody a sysop because we trust his/her judgement. I think it would show maturity of judgement if Mydog recognized the sensibilities of several Wikipedians as good enough reason to change his/her name. Kosebamse 13:44, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. As a theist, I believe God is big enough and has a good enough sense of humor to laugh at the absurdity of a dog eating God's hat. I think the coprophagia argument (how is this inappropriate for children? Why would any of them know that shat is an antiquated past tense of anything?) is spurious, and frankly Ed, I respect you for what I've seen you do. It never occurred to me that "Jwrosenzweig" inspires anyone to do anything, so based on Ed's argument, my sysop status ought to be revoked? I have yet to hear from a genuinely offended theist and would be surprised to find one, any more than we should find a George III supporter who opposed GreenMountainBoy (sorry Green, first example I could think of) because of his name. It may be theoretically offensive, but I sure don't see how it would be in real life, and I doubt anyone posting here "does not trust" Mydog..., which in my opinion is the only real reason to withhold support. Just my two cents, Jwrosenzweig 23:19, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have seen that mydog is a good contributor, although I will admit that their name still seems to be an issue to me. Fuzheado said at the last rfa nomination "first it was MonadsExcrescent, then mydogategodsbone and now mydogategodshat." I think the double meaning in his username is clever. I don't want to be a kill-joy, however if I didn't know this user well enough, as new users wouldn't, the initial impression of the user name could be a put off to wikipedia. When mydog first came here, someone went to the mailing list [1] about his name choice. There is a simple solution ... Maximus Rex 05:56, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think we need judge the case on past names the contributor may have held.--About the objections above, let me point out that "Tannin" (besides a chemical found in tree-bark and tea-leaves) is the name of a Demon, and "Pollinator" is an explicit reference to a sexual act. Coprophagia may be distasteful to many, though it is a natural phase in childrens developement; in any case seeing the reference in Mydos name requires some serious squinting.--And as for Uncle Ed, well... let me just say that personally, way back in my early days on WP his name at first glance inspired suspicion, rather than trust, in me personally. But that is just me, and something I have since gotten over; and in any case neither here nor there, as should be vague associations people may glean from any users name. I really have no wish to list any and all users whose usernames might (with expended effort) be considered questionable, but do consider it clear that Mydo should not be needlessly singled out. A username should have to be clearly controversial for it to be an issue. Mydos name clearly is not clearly controversial, but rather it is obscurely controversial, like many other usernames. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 09:25, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose the name is not only offensive, it is designed to be offensive. On top of it, anything which could remotely be considered to be offensive to personal theists (70% + of the world population) should not be had as a user name, and reference to eating any possesion of God's is necessarilly offensive and provocative. if the name is changed, I would most likely change my vote, I've only seen this user make quality edits. Jack 09:34, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: when I first glanced at this user name, I read "my dog ate god shat", not "gods hat". It's not subtle.
  • Support. I think you people are blowing this name thing way out of proportion. Unless you are looking to be offended, "My dog ate god's hat" is not. He's a great contributor (something which no one has disputed), so I say make him an admin. →Raul654 11:12, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote. Qusetion: Is this username a clear violation of the non-offensive usernames policy? Optim 13:52, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Choosing a silly provocative username and stubbornly refusing to change it suggests that the user is a bit too immature for adminship. --Wik 14:16, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, regardless of name. Do those who dislike the name also find MyDogAteGodsHat unacceptable, given that it removes the scatological possibility?Jamesday 14:49, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Silsor

Good contributor and RC junky. Needs to be an admin so that we don't have to listen to him requesting for page deletions on #wikipedia. Has been here for approximately three months with approximately 900 edits. --snoyes 01:54, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Eloquence already did this, from Wikipedia:Recently created admins: "Nominated by Snoyes and quickly promoted by me because I did not foresee any objections and he kept pointing out vandalism on IRC. If you have any objections, you can still comment here." -- Tim Starling 02:21, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • This is likely the worst precedent ever. silsor 02:23, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. 500+ article edits, lots of trustworthy interaction in IRC. Though I agree with silsor, this fast-tracking can only stir up bad feelings about the whole adminship thing. Fuzheado 02:25, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • I would support Silsor, but I think quickly promoting him was a very bad idea and an violation of policy. Silsor must first accept this nomination. Very very bad... --Jiang 02:26, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Silsor. Maximus Rex 02:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • As I have stated on Eloquence's talk page, I don't think that it is justified for any developer to take it upon himself or herself to grant administratorship, which ought to be granted by the authority of the users themselves. Furthermore, I said that it is inappropriate for a developer to enter the realm of prophecy by determining that there could possibly be no objection. Support. -- Lord Emsworth
  • Great contributor, and I will happily support him in another couple months, but not yet. Fast tracking like this sets a very bad precedent. Oppose. →Raul654 02:40, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Silsor is eminently qualified to be a sysop. The fast tracking Eloquence performed was skipping a week's worth of discussion on RFA, not skipping a few months' worth of contributions. -- Tim Starling 02:50, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • I misunderstood what Jiang by fast tracking. I thought it was in reference to the fact that that he has not been here very long, but I see that was incorrect. I withdraw my opposition and support. →Raul654 11:39, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • At present, this entire section is of no value as silsor is already an administrator. Perhaps the discussion should be moved elsewhere. -- Lord Emsworth 02:55, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • No, this discussion needs to proceed without taking Eloquence's premature action into account. It's for the record... It will also determine whether that decision was justified or whether it should be revoked. --Jiang 06:14, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • I think that, even if Silsor is qualified to be an administrator, and even if there is full consensus on his nomination, Eloquence's decision would not on these bases be justified. One ought not to start prophesising and decide for oneself if there will or will not be any objections. -- Lord Emsworth 11:32, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (after the fact). I was thinking of nominating him myself, and I agree that the fast tracking was a bad idea. Dori | Talk 04:20, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd thought of nominating Silsor too, but I thought with only (very approx) 300 unique article edits that it was probably too soon to do so, though I would have supported a nomination made by someone else had he not already been made a sysop before I saw this. Angela. 04:28, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I support Silsor's sysopship but I don't agree with Eloquence's action. Developer power should not be used for editorial purposes, only for technical decisions such as feature design. Despite having "only" 900 contributions (I thought that used to be plenty) he seems like a responsible person. -- Tim Starling 04:44, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I always assumed Silsor was an administrator anyway, based upon the quality of his edits and his dedication to preserving the integrity of Wikipedia. So I wholeheartedly support his promotion. Next time I want vandalism deleted, I can bug him! :-) - Mark 16:38, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I can't "support" because it already happened, but I retroactively endorse his sysopship. Eloquence, did you really promote him unilaterally, and without even listing his name here for 24 hours? If I still had DB access, I would undo that just to make everything neat and orderly. Anyway, Silsor is (will be) a fine admin. --Uncle Ed 16:52, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Secretlondon 22:41, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

ysophood

Roadrunner

User:Roadrunner has made about 5000 edits, most of good quality. His contributions list registers his first edit on Apr 2002. Though this may not be accurate due to the glitch, I pretty sure he's been here longer than I have. --Jiang 22:07, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • support. Greenmountainboy 17:38, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support, copious contributor. (Maybe nominations should be switched to the top of this page so they'd be more noticeable.) - Hephaestos 04:13, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • (Moved nominations as you suggest, though NB have no opinion for or against User:Roadrunner -- Trainspotter 15:31, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC))
  • nth. Can't believe a longtime contributor still haven't been promoted to sysop.大将军, 都督中外诸军事 (talk) 00:02, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tuf-Kat
  • Support. I have seen him insert a quality NPOV compromise into a troubled POV debate/altercation regarding a passage, and thereby resolve the circumstance. He appears to have just the sort of judicial approach that would dignify adminship with his inclusion. Jack 04:04, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's about time, and I hope he accepts. --Uncle Ed 16:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Requests for adminship

Please add new requests to the top

Lord Emsworth

  • As I have seen that 1000 is considered "a good number of edits" here, I think that I may ask for the administratorship. From my count, I have approximately 2700 contributions, all since last August. Thank you for your consideration of the matter.
    • Support, dedicated contributor, work is extensive --Jiang 01:29, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Support, frequently appears in my watchlist :) -- Arwel 02:06, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Support, a large body of solid work. (But still no Worshipful Company of Thieves?) -- Smerdis of Tlön 02:44, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. Green Mountain 03:47, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. Lord Emsworth is the sort of contributor we need more of here at Wikipedia. - Mark 04:12, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Support Secretlondon 13:56, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support Hemanshu 17:25, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Support enthusiastically. FearÉIREANN 01:10, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. With Best Wishes for Peace Profound, ... Optim 02:15, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC) ...
    • Support. The good earl is tireless and unfailingly polite. john 02:18, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. Made good edits in Wikibooks, as far as I remember. Κσυπ Cyp   02:41, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. Angela. 12:03, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support -was the first to complete an intital draft of a book in wikibooks. theresa knott 11:43, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. Hughly interesting contributions. Bmills 11:54, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Imran

  • Been here for a while (technically I've been around since pre-Wikipedia but have been a regular contributor for a shorter time) made a few changes. Adminship would be handy for dealing with vandalism.
    • Support Tuf-Kat 03:08, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support Secretlondon 17:19, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support Hemanshu 17:26, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. ... Optim 03:09, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC) ...
    • Support. I thought he already had sysop rights; just humble, I guess. --Uncle Ed 16:59, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

LouI

  • I had hoped to make this request in 2003, but after 1000 contributions. I'm only just over 900, but I've decided to ask anyway. My only excuse is that a number of these have been longer biographies or articles that required research. Thanks for your consideration. Lou I 16:57, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Support!!!!!!! Greenmountainboy 17:39, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Support. It is 2003, where I live at least... --Jiang
      • It was 2003 everywhere when he applied. greenmountainboy (talk) 15:54, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • No it wasn't. :) - Mark 13:36, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • Oh, but it was where he lived. I just thought you misread his statement. Green Mountain 22:58, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Also support. Does great stuff. - Hephaestos 23:00, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Requests and nominations for de-adminship

If you're requesting your own de-adminship, you can do so private communication with a developer, should you wish to do so. If you're requesting de-adminship of someone else, you can do so here, but please first try to discuss the issue directly with the admin in question.

Note that there are alternatives to removing sysop privileges: a "clarification" or "request" from Jimbo is more likely than something so drastic.

  • Danny and Stephen Gilbert recently requested their own de-adminship. Stephen cited the fact that he hasn't really been active here for quite some time. Danny didn't give reasons. He also deleted his user pages before he made his request. -- Tim Starling 11:47, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • After negotiating with Jimbo, Danny returned on the 12th and asked via the ML for someone to undelete his user and talk pages (which I did). I suggest this request be put on hold until further notice. --Viajero 10:17, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Cunctator

The discussion previously listed here is still active as of 4th December 2003 11am UTC. However I have moved it to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Cunctator due to the length of this page and the fact the discussion had drifted away from the primary purpose of this page, which is about granting people sysopship. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:51, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=2152487"