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 Eloquence (talk | contribs) at 02:52, 8 March 2004 (delisting sam, too contentious and will only provoke extended flamewars). 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 and Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats.

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


Jay (3/0); ends 15:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jay has been here since July 2003. He has made numerous edits which usually consist of additions to articles and wikification. He should have already been nominated, but he isn't an admin so I will nominate him now. Perl 15:15, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Perl.
  2. Support. Angela. 17:44, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. Good contributor, friendly. KRS 14:45, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lexor (5/0); ends 14:59, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lexor has been a wikipedian since Nov 2003 with more than 1800 edits. He makes good edits (lots of disambig, formatting, etc) and he fights vandalism. I would be happy to see Lexor become an Administrator. Perl 14:59, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Perl.
  2. Support. I thought he already was one. Angela. 17:44, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support - Texture 18:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Strongly support -- Stewart Adcock 20:23, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. Maximus Rex 21:18, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Visorstuff (3/0); ends 15:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Visorstuff has made over 600 edits since July 2003 under his name. He works very well with the other editors, has helped make significant, useful organizational edits to Mormonism articles, and has added substantial content to religion articles. As any experienced wikipedian knows, religion articles are one of the hardest to present under the NPOV policy, and in this respect, Visorstuff, Wesley and Mkmccon have clearly shown they support this policy. Wikipedia needs these admins to help guide newer wikipedians in the right direction and keep the peace in the religion articles. B 15:12, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

I'll accept, thanks for the nomination. -Visorstuff 23:11, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. B
  2. I'll support. We disagreed on one occasion, but Visorstuff was very communicative about the whole thing and it was a positive experience overall -- the type of person who ought to be an admin. Jwrosenzweig 17:55, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. It looks we're on a kick to nominate admins for the religion sections. Perhaps it's good to do a bunch at the same time, so they can monitor each other as well. Not that I foresee any problems from this crew, just that the presentation of religious subjects has a high risk of provoking people. We need admins to help each other tread carefully. --Michael Snow 00:34, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. Working together was constructive, and educational for me. Wesley 04:11, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  • Not a vote, but I just wanted to point out that you don't need to be an admin to help new users. Angela. 17:44, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
Let me rephrase then: "wayward" new users. More admins are needed in religion articles. I sure would have appreciated an experienced an admin who focused on religion articles when I first started creating Mormonism articles as a newbie wikipedian. RK tainted my newbie experience. An admin in that area would have helped defuse the situation earlier. B

User:Wesley (12/0); ends 23:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BoNoMoJo is absolutely right (comment below in Mkmcconn's nomination) -- Wesley has done an excellent job here -- almost 3,500 edits since October 2001. He does a good job finding consensus, and is very worthy of adminship, in my opinion. Jwrosenzweig 23:05, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks... I think. I'll accept with the understanding that there's no accompanying obligation to spend even more time here. Naturally I'd like to stick around and help Wikipedia continue to grow into its potential. Wesley 04:56, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Jwrosenzweig
  2. Wesley is an excellent contributor. B 23:14, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  3. support. Perl 23:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Tuf-Kat 00:40, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Need more consensus builders Davodd 01:55, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  6. He is able to work on articles concerning religion and not get into edit wars, name calling, or arguments. A model citizen with a keen eye. Kingturtle 02:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. Angela. 03:57, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. -- Jake 07:33, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)
  9. Support. Pfortuny 16:12, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support. He uses talk pages how they were designed. Works well to build consensus. -Visorstuff 17:32, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support. Excellent work Pollinator 03:01, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  12. Michael Snow 21:31, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

pfortuny (10/0); ends 21:18, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Pedro Fortuny Ayuso is a very good Wikipedian and would make a great admin. He seems to keep a cool head when editing controversial subjects. He has been here for some time (4 or 5 months) and has around 800 edits. Perl 21:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh my, I'm flattered... Pfortuny 16:12, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Perl
  2. Jwrosenzweig 21:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) -- In my experience, he has been a trustworthy and productive editor.
  3. Secretlondon 21:25, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Tuf-Kat 00:40, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Davodd 01:55, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Definitely support. Pfortuny will make a great admin. Angela. 03:52, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. -- Jake 07:33, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)
  8. Support -- Stewart Adcock 20:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Michael Snow 00:26, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. jengod 04:35, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
  11. ¡Como no! Viajero 15:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  12. —Eloquence 00:16, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
  13. RickK 02:41, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Isomorphic (14/0); ends 20:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Isomorphic has around 900 edits and has been here for more than 3 months. A lot of his edit summaries contain statements like "reverted vandalism. admin protect this!" or "nonsense page! ADMIN: please delete right now!", so I'm sure he could use the powers. (It would also prevent him from blaking pages which annoys me) Perl 20:09, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't usually do as much vandal-fighting as Perl has seen in the last couple days, but it will be nice to easilly fix the garbage when I see it. I mostly hope to use my abilities to help out newcomers with their problems. Thank you all very much for the support, and I hope I don't disappoint anyone. Isomorphic 05:53, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Perl edit: I also just noticed that Isomorphic is a member of the new user welcoming committee. Perl 21:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Excellent choice. Jwrosenzweig 20:36, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Just now I was checking Isomorphic's edits while I was considering an adminship nomination :) Optim 20:40, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Yes, strongly - in the light of his efforts to mediate with Plautus, I was considering nominating him myself. Very good choice. →Raul654 21:18, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Michael Snow 23:48, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Dysprosia 03:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Sam Spade 04:57, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) I assumed you had been here longer?
  8. Should Isomorphic accept the nomination, I am certain he'll make a great sysop. cprompt 05:27, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support. Good work on the welcoming committee. Meelar 05:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Definitely support. Isomorphic is a great contributer to Wikipeda - as well as fighting vandalism he helps out newcomers and had the great idea of creating the user-friendly Wikipedia:Tutorial (he has written most of the content thats currently there as well). Ludraman 18:47, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support. Has been helpful to new users. Davodd 01:55, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support. Great work with new users. Angela. 03:52, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Support. -- Jake 07:33, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)
  14. Support. -- Seth Ilys 03:16, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  15. Support. Kindly supportive of me when I first joined up -- Jcobb 00:08, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)


Self nominations for adminship

Please add new requests to the top


Requests for bureaucratship

Please add new requests to the top

ugen64

I would like to request my bureaucratship. I have (hopefully) avoided annoying most of you, and... I guess that's it. ugen64 15:19, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

De-adminship

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=2676279"