Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cimon Avaro (talk | contribs) at 20:04, 21 February 2004 (==Requests for de-bureacratorship==). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats for a list of users entrusted to grant sysop rights.

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 a variety of articles without often getting into conflicts with other users.

Nomination. Users can nominate other users for administrator. Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nor can they nominate others. The absolute minimum requirement to be involved with adminship matters is to have a username in the system.
Self-nomination. If you want to nominate yourself to become an administrator, it is recommended that you have been a user for a reasonable period of time - long enough to be regarded as 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 or bureaucrat 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

BL

BL is a calm, reasonable user (since 2002) diligently working on a contentious set of articles. 172 09:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Uncle Ed 14:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Viajero 14:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Based on the opposition BL received the last time he was on this page, I'd like to know whether his reasons for wanting to be a sysop have changed before I vote. See also [1]. Angela. 16:01, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know if he wants admin status. I nominated him on my own initiative, felling that his amiable attitude and diligence were long over-due for recognition. He might have had his differences with some users, but keep in mind that he's been working under conditions of guerilla-like combat (the Mid East articles) for over two years. 172 19:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Tough call. I don't think a persons opinions should be held against him, like they were the last time round, so I would lean towards supporting, but count me as noncommittal for the time being. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 16:53, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Anyone who can stay calm while working on the most inflammatory articles in Wikipedia deserves to be a sysop. --No-One Jones 17:45, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Maximus Rex 21:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Angela doesn't trust BL, so i don't trust BL. Alexandros 22:13, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Stewart Adcock 00:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I think recruiting a radical "inclusionist" is a bad idea. He votes "keep" even on trash that could qualify for instant deletion. --Jiang 00:52, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wants to put the project at risk by promoting wholesale copyright infringement [2]. Perhaps he should fork, as he suggested in the post. --Michael Snow 16:44, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral -- ends 09:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Redwolf

I hereby nominate RedWolf for adminship. Since his first edit on 26 Oct 2003, he has made over 6000 edits, a significant proportion of which relate to disambiguation. He has authored many new articles and submitted several wonderful pictures. As far as I can tell, he hasn't been involved in any dispute, which seems to be a feat in itself at the moment. RedWolf clearly has a good understanding of Wikipedia and I think he will make a fine admin. Stewart Adcock 17:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination Stewart and I graciously accept said nomination. I'll help out with any administrative type tasks when I can (and time permits) but I understand that adminship does not demand any such tasks be carried out on any regular basis. RedWolf 04:46, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (Based on above, haven't verified... somebody please verify) --Hemanshu 17:47, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tuf-Kat
  • I don't know RedWolf, and thus am abstaining -- I do want to ask, though, why Tuf-Kat above doesn't indicate a vote, and why the tally below assumes he supports? I have no agenda in this....I just got confused by it. Thanks in advance, anyone who can explain. :-) Jwrosenzweig 17:01, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) Thanks, Kt, that makes sense. Should have checked the history. Consider me neutral for this vote. Jwrosenzweig 17:10, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral -- ends 17:44, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ChrisO

ChrisO is a good contributor and should be a sysop if he wants. He has shown remarkable patience with difficult users. --Wik 00:06, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • (Not a vote) - User has been here since October 21 and has 940 edits. →Raul654 00:10, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Did a complete rewrite of Kosovo War that was really needed, and has handled himself well with those that brought it to that state. Dori | Talk 00:14, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Chris appears to have a good understanding of Wikipedia and would make a good sysop. Angela. 07:39, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Immense patience shown. Morwen 07:40, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A really good contributor and works towards NPOV on controversial articles on central/east european topics. Secretlondon 07:51, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support 172 08:22, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support; nothing but net, as far I can see... Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 09:19, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Tuf-Kat
  • Support. I've known Chris O since the early days of the Scientology Internet war. He has treated this infamously controversial subject with honesty and lack of bias, and he has contributed enormously to those subjects here along with many others. --Modemac 20:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've seen nothing but good from Mr. O. --No-One Jones 21:29, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, welcome aboard! Meelar 02:01, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. john 04:28, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. He's done a fine and much needed job on the Kosovo related articles, and seems sensible....G-Man 18:47, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Primarily because Wik trusts him. --Uncle Ed 19:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Crikey - I wasn't expecting this at all! Thanks for the support, it's genuinely unexpected and I'm glad to have been able to make a contribution. So, ummm... do I get a gold star now or something? :-) -- ChrisO 23:45, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, in 5 more days if there's still a consensus some bureaucrate will make you an admin. --Uncle Ed 19:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 14 for, 0 against. (ends 00:06, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Requests for adminship

Please add new requests to the top

Pumpie

(link: user:Pumpie added by Metasquares | talk)

  • I would like to become an administrator since I have done over a 100 edits when I am logged in.
    • Oppose. Your statement simply tells us how many edits you have. How do we know if you can be trusted as an admin with just that statement? As I've said countless times all over the 'pedia, # of edits != Trust. Furthermore, you didn't specify a reason for any edits, which makes it all the more difficult to understand what your intentions were with each edit you've made. Elaborate a bit and I may change my vote. Metasquares 19:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

waltersimons

(link: user:Waltersimons added by fabiform | talk)

I know, I know. One should be member of wikipedia for some time, longer than a month. But I use the wikipedia service now already for about two years, I edited so many pages already, and recently I thought, "well, why not become a member, so others can see who this great contributor is".

So I decided to create an account, but far far too late. Had I created an account two years ago, I'm pretty sure there would be no problem now with becoming admin. I thought, this time I won't make that mistake of applying too late, better apply too early! The worst thing that can happen, is that you decline my request for admin. What will I do then? I'll wait for 6 months or so, make some edits in the mean time, and apply again.

To tell you the truth, I expect that you decline my request for the time-reason that I am very well aware of. Nobody ever does what I tell them to, I tell my colleagues for 3 months that Clark is the guy to vote for, but what does he do, 2 weeks before super-tuesday? He drops out! I write Clark an email not to skip Iowa, but what does he do? Skips Iowa!

To regain my self-confidence you can do two things: A Vote for Kerry/Edwards/Kucinich/Sharpton in November, B make me admin!

Sincerely,

Walter Simons

  • Oppose. You don't have the edits; and the edits you have don't impress me. Consider that you could also wait to be nominated. Charles Matthews 13:45, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the above reasons. I counted that you had 10 non userpage or talk page edits. Also, you give no reason why you want/need to be an admin. If you made edits prior to creating an account, you might want to get them assigned to your username. I've just put a "welcome" message on your talkpage, it contains some useful links. fabiform | talk 14:02, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Defer. If you have been editing for several years, please indicate which IP addresses (and IP ranges, from early on) that you edited from, so the veracity of this claim can be checked. - Mark 14:08, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote from me yet. Mark beat me to it. Walter, compile for us a list of IPs you've worked under. I don't knoe if it will help your case, but it might. Kingturtle 19:11, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. Please specify the IPs you've worked under, so I can better get a sense of the quality of your work. The 30 edits I see from you give me no reason to distrust you, but you say you have a larger pool by which we can judge your work, thus the reason for the conditional support vote. Metasquares 19:30, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

Please add new requests to the top

Optim

  • I think it may be useful to be able grant adminship in the Greek Wikipedia (el:) in the future without bothering a developer. Hopefully I can be more useful as a bureaucrat. Optim 04:26, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. But I don't think the English RFA is the right place to be asking. Angela. 19:36, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Lir

I request bureaucrat status. Lirath Q. Pynnor 13:03 (PST), 20 Feb 2004

  • Conditional support. If you can make Admin, I will certainly trust you to be a bureaucrat. --Uncle Ed 21:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Your comment makes me wonder what qualifications people are using to elect people to bureaucrat- it seems to me that people are using the same criteria to elect bureaucrats as admins. Aren't there more specific qualities required of a bureaucrat that are not necessarily required to be an admin? Theoretically, an admin is serving the best interests of the wiki in a reasonable manner; with the current voting rationales, why shouldn't all admins also have bureaucrat status anyway? As it is now, it just seems like a silly wikipedia status symbol. - DropDeadGorgias 21:19, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose for now. I think he should see how he gets on as a sysop before taking on further responsilibities. Angela. 21:35, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose, IMO should have admin status before requesting bureacrat status. -- Infrogmation
    • Oppose, simply by virtue of the fact that's Lir is so contentious. Bureaucrats should be widely trusted users, and should also be *very* few. -- Seth Ilys 22:33, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose, simply because I think one should have to be an admin to be a beaurocrat. How can we let someone make other admins who's not an admin themselves? --Delirium 22:38, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Lir was hard-banned for a year, although he used other names during that time, so he never really served his time. Since being allowed to use the Lir-account again, he has be unilaterally banned twice,and has caused more than two dozen articles to be protected. From what I have seen, Lir baits and insults people, snubs well-mannered reasoning, and is both passive aggressive and contentious. Lir treats too much of wikipedia as a joke, including this very request. Personally, I think Lir has had his second chance, and should be hard-banned for good. Kingturtle 23:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Were Kingturtle's comments an example of well-mannered reasoning? Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • Oppose. I don't think that many people would be comfortable giving Lir this sort of power. Perhaps once his motives are made clear, I'll consider flipping this to a supportive vote. Metasquares 19:22, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 1 conditional support, 6 oppose

lol lol Lirath Q. Pynnor

I should point out that bureaucrat status requires sysop status to work. I can gladly make Lir a bureaucrat, but alone it will not have any effect.—Eloquence 23:34, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

do it! Lirath Q. Pynnor

In all the rush, we forgot to ask Lir what his/her motives are as to being beauractized. - Well, why and what do you, Lir, want to be a beauracrat for? What do you intend to do once you are one? I'm sure that knowing these answer would clear up much. --Menchi 04:39, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Infrogmation

I've been a contributor to Wikipedia since September of 2002, and was granted admin status (without asking for it first) in February of 2003. I hang around Wikipedia a good deal and try to be helpful and useful. I request bureaucrat status. -- Infrogmation 17:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Support. Angela. 19:36, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Tally: support: 1 oppose: 0

Ed Poor

I'd like to be a bureaucrat. I am a developer and used to be just about the only one who did sysop promotion. I think I'm good enough at detecting consensus to be trusted with the "promote" button. --Uncle Ed 18:13, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • I have to oppose. This user has assumed the worst about me (going so far as to publically suggest I am a banned user) and has variously failed to strike me as someone with an astute appraisel of others. Sam Spade 18:36, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No, I just suspected you were a "sock puppet". (If you're Jack Lynch, then I'm right.) If I thought you were using a sock puppet to evade a ban, I would have contacted Brion or Tim privately.
      • Actually, you accused me of perhaps being EoT [3]. I notice it is hard to keep track of your mistaken allegations, but this one at least will be mentioned here. Your insinuation that I might utilize a sock puppet is similarilly a poor example of your assesment of charector. The multiple accusations against me have caused me to develop a less than favorable opinion of you (one that incidentilly I am striving to shed, as I DO see you as a good admin.) I just don't think this is the right timing nor circumstance for a promotion. Sam Spade 02:45, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Ed, this user was previously User:JackLynch. He asked to have his username changed, and Tim did so. The confusion results from the fact that Jack/Sam doesn't like other people pointing out that User:JackLynch is now User:Sam Spade, as I'm now doing. - snoyes 22:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Thanks, kinda :p Sam Spade 02:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think Ed has established a reputation for himself as being very fair. →Raul654 18:21, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just days ago he asked to be desysopped, and I'm still waiting for that. --Wik 18:22, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wik, assuming you mean that seriously, I think I should tell you that (as best I can tell) Ed was being sarcastic about the desysopping. →Raul654 23:44, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
      • Probably, but he should have been serious. He violated the rules, and should be temporarily desysopped for it. --Wik 23:47, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Anthony DiPierro 18:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Hopefully we will get a chance to elect bureaucrats in future. Warofdreams 18:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The decisions of a bureaucrat will be transparent anyway -- if they don't promote someone who is obviously supported, there will be unrest. :-) I say that as a general argument: certainly I trust Ed's judgment even if it was not transparent. Jwrosenzweig 18:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ed is a real good guy and excellent Wikipedian that is able to admit when he is wrong. I don't think that he will promote any users that should not be. --mav 23:40, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: as a Developer, I could promote myself with a SET user_rights = "bureaucrat" query, but I'm not going to do that. I ain't no stinkin' unilateralist, man! I go with the flow, seeking that perfect balance between wave and board so eloquently promoted by my sock puppet, er, alter ego, "Surfer Dude". --Uncle Ed 19:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Refusing to act? Spoken like a true bureaucrat. Refusing to act unilaterally. Spoken like a true Wikipedia bureaucrat. Support, and thank you Ed for taking this task on board, alongside the mailing list administration and the tireless article mediation you've done for so well for a long time now. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:41, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Jiang
  • Support. jengod 01:05, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I commend Ed for taking the initiative to make bureaucrat status subject to a vote. However, it's a little confusing to see it listed as a request for adminship. We either need a separate section for this, or a separate page. --Michael Snow 01:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Disagree strongly. As I've said three times in the last hour, Wikipedia already has a lot of pages that require maintenence, and the last thing we need is another. There are going to be very, very few requests for beuracratic status, so (for the few we do get) this page would suit us just fine. →Raul654 01:16, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. Danny 02:41, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, how do we know that if he runs the promomtion query granting him those powers, that he won't abuse his new powers? Perhaps the reason he is asking to be invited to run the query to grant himself the powers is the same reason vampires need to be invited to enter a house (which I however never quite understood)... Ok, just joking. Support. Κσυπ Cyp   14:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I really respect Ed for holding some strong, minority points of view without getting in revert wars over them, not to mention for managing to calm down Gdansk. Pakaran. 14:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I would support Ed Poor personally, but since I am a member of the Mediation Committee, count me as neutral. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 14:54, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Infrogmation 15:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Arwel 18:51, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. theresa knott 20:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
15 to 2 is a good as you could hope with a group that large. Consensus ≠ unanimous. I say make yourself a bureaucrat. →Raul654 20:20, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support/Oppose, depending. I'm afraid I agree with some of what Sam/Jack said, that Ed is a hasty and judgmental appraiser of behavior. I also agree that he is good spirited. To the extent people express their feelings clearly, and to the extent the exact degree of concensus necessary for promotion to syshophood is clear, then I trust that Ed knows how to count, is honest, and will respect what he perceives to be the wishes of the community. But I don't consider him either an astute judge of nuances or a master of restraint. I'd like to know better what the job entails before I either support or oppose.168...|...Talk 20:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Your description of my character is spot-on, Mr. 24x7! I admit to having been hasty, judgmental and no master of restraint. I'm hoping my awareness of these character flaws will enable me to keep them in check. I did list myself at [[4]], in part because I realized I had crossed a line with Wik; I really want this to be a community where we all work together harmoniously. --Uncle Ed 20:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Ams80 20:29, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Kingturtle 00:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of the unilateral ban of Wik less than 7 days before this and the writing above saying he isn't a unilateralist, suggesting a lack of recognition of his own tendency to act in haste. Also because he continues to advocate unilateral banning on the mailing list. Ed, please at least be consistent in your opposition to unilateralism, through your deeds as well as your words in all places, not just this page. Once you are, I'll support this. Until then, I don't think you're recognising how you really act. Jamesday 01:58, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. And this request is really unnecessary. I made myself a bureaucrat as soon as that flag became available. If Ed was previously trusted to make sysops, I don't see why he shouldn't be trusted now. Bureaucrats cannot desysop users, anyway, so the worst "unilateral action" Ed can take is make someone a sysop who shouldn't be. Big whoop.—Eloquence 02:10, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is a big whoop, especially given the recent troubles Wikipedia has had with inappropriate sysop behavior. -- Seth Ilys 18:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I likewise find such mirthful scoffings at the misconduct of ones peers, and dismisal of the complaints of ones subordinates to be yet another sign of the wiki's rapid decent into oligarchy. Sam Spade 20:45, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Angela. 08:19, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Although it's not specifically stated, I believe that we should wait the full week for bureaucrat nominations, just as with adminship -- especially when someone is self-nominated. I oppose until 18:13 UTC on 25 February 2004, at which time my vote becomes support. -- Seth Ilys 00:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It is specifically stated. 7 days. Kingturtle 00:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It's specifically stated for adminship, not bureaucratship. I'm not trying to cause trouble, but we really should do things properly. My vote was specifically in response to Raul's comment suggesting Ed go ahead and give himself the status before the vote was concluded. The community should probably also vote on Eloquence's bureaucratship. - Seth Ilys 18:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the same reasons as Sam Spade, Wik and Jamesday; Ed has shown himself to be a hasty judge of character, and has acted without the consensus of the Wikipedia. I also have to disagree with Eloquence, in that a rogue Admin can do a lot of damage to Wikipedia's content and reputation. The democratic election of admins and bureaucrats on Wikipedia is not something to be taken lightly. - DropDeadGorgias 19:06, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Ed and Erik are developers. There is no need to vote on either of them. They can make sysops at will by directly writing the database. All a bureaucrat flag does is enable them to do it through a proper interface rather than having to mess around with memcached as they used to have to do. Opposing it makes no sense. These people already the ability to do these things. What is there to vote on? Angela. 21:30, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • I suppose you have to go through all of this paperwork and meaningless arguments to prove that you're up for the "bureaucracy". I suppose my main complaint with this nomination discussion was the quick dismissal of a democratic solution. I agree with you that this discusison is a farce though- I assume that Ed will merely take Eloquence's route out. - DropDeadGorgias 22:33, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • No, I won't. I'm quite serious about what Jimbo said (and what Wik and others also want): that admins should not be unilateralists. I can ssh my way into the database and do anything, but I won't. We ALL should follow an orderly, agreed-upon process. --Uncle Ed 13:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support; long-time admin I trust. --Delirium 22:39, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support... ugen64 04:13, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC) (I changed the tally, is that what I'm supposed to do?)
  • Support. We trust Ed enough to give him access to the code; certainly we can trust him with bureaucrat status. I'm even more convinced of this than I was earlier after reading this discussion. Metasquares 19:18, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 22 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral (When tally ends on 18:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC), Seth's oppose flips to support)

Kingturtle

I too would like to be a bureaucrat. I have been an admin for about nine months. Although I have strong (and sometimes unpopular) opinions, I am very careful how I utilize my admin powers; I consider my admin actions fair and in good wiki-spirit. I take my responsibilities as admin very seriously. I live best I can to the parting words of Larry Sanger, and of all the articles I've written I am most proud of Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz. Kingturtle 04:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 4 support, 0 oppose.

Requests for de-bureacratorship

Cimon Avaro

I would like asssurances that I will never be made a bureaucrat of any wikipedia. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 20:04, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

De-adminship

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=2474132"