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 Ugen64 (talk | contribs) at 21:34, 17 March 2004. 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

moink, (18/0), ends 17:24, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would like to nominate moink for adminship; she has made 1,028 edits here since December 1, 2003, and her positive attitude and intelligent contributions mark her as someone who would make an excellent admin, in my opinion. I hope the community feels the same way. Jwrosenzweig 17:25, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If the community supports me, I'd love to be an admin. These days I haven't been doing large amounts of work but I'll do more over Spring Break, and it would be nice to be able to do some admin tasks. moink 17:46, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Jwrosenzweig
  2. Dori | Talk 18:50, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Isomorphic - I didn't have time to participate, but I liked the "Who is moink" contest. She seems like a solid contributor.
  4. Hephaestos|§ 19:22, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. I'd swear that I already nominated you, but I guess I havent. Who is moink competition was very cool, and the name moink is cool too. Perl 22:34, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. Angela. 23:37, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. And the contest was great, btw. BCorr¤Брайен 01:09, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. Stewart Adcock 01:38, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support. Anthony DiPierro 01:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support. Meelar 02:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support. jengod 02:28, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support Dysprosia 02:33, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  13. Support. Maximus Rex, 09:09, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  14. Support. Davodd 10:58, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Support. Warofdreams 16:49, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  16. Support! Elf-friend 18:07, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  17. Michael Snow 17:04, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  18. Cyan 21:05, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Self nominations for adminship

Please add new requests to the top

User:Seth Ilys (24/0/0); ends 01:29, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've been thinking long and hard about this; particularly whether I should nominate myself and whether I should do so, especially so soon after my hasty refusal of a nomination last month. I value Wikipedia both as a resource and as an open community, which was one of the reasons the intital missteps by the arbitration committee troubled me so deeply. But since then, especially in being active on the #wikipedia IRC channel, my faith in the community as a supportive network has been entirely restored. I'm still outspoken on a number of matters, but I'm thrilled to be a part of a group like this where diversity (of many forms) is both valuable and appreciated.

So I want to step up to the plate further and be more useful as an admin, specifically by helping combat vandalism and handle speedy deletions (I spend a good deal of time monitoring newpages) without having to refer those tasks to others. I've been here since 22 December 2003 and have accumulated over 5500 edits; I've tried to be reasonable and not act rashly when perturbed. Once I find full-time employment (which I hope is soon), my activity level will certainly scale back a bit, but I don't plan to leave; Wikipedia is too much fun... -- Seth Ilys 01:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Perl 01:33, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. I supported Seth last time. I will this time too. Kingturtle 01:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. We could use dedicated admins now more than ever. →Raul654 01:56, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. Seth appears to have a very good understanding of Wikipedia despite his short time here and I think he is more than capable of being a good admin. Angela. 01:59, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. fabiform | talk 02:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. Assuming he doesn't intend to refuse this nomination. ;-) Excellent editor, will make a fine admin. Jwrosenzweig 16:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. Stewart Adcock 17:59, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) (And, good luck with the job hunt!)
  8. Support. I have frequently followed him around deleting stuff he has added the delete msg to...so he'd be good for that kind of work, for sure! Adam Bishop 19:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Michael Snow 20:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support. Already thought he was an admin. Davodd 00:39, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support. Danny 02:45, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support. Kosebamse 19:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  13. Support. Seems quite helpful, hard-working and sympathetic. Pfortuny 19:46, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  14. Support. Excellent editor and picture finder. - MykReeve 22:55, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  15. Support. Very good editor. RadicalBender 01:42, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  16. Support. Martin
  17. Support. Decumanus 00:10, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  18. Support. Seth has a great attitude and work ethic. - Mark 02:24, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  19. Support. Definitely an asset to Wikipedia. BCorr¤Брайен 04:51, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  20. Support. Maximus Rex, 09:09, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  21. Support. Elf-friend 18:25, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  22. Support - Texture 06:17, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  23. I'm re-moving my vote to support. Seth Ilys is a very good Wikipedian, and I might be better off taking up my nit-picking issues with him on his talk page. Ludraman | Talk 07:54, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  24. Support. -- Cyan 21:03, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. Support> Ludraman | Talk 10:05, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    In the phrasing of Ned Flanders: I don't mean to be a negative neddy and all, but Seth Ilys might be a tad too quick in speedy-deleting some new pages, which given a chance often improve. Not that I'm against his sysophood, he's fairly very good otherwise. Ludraman | Talk 21:31, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just to be clear; I'm not an admin yet, so there's no way that I could have deleted any pages. I believe that what Ludraman is referring to is my placement of the {{msg:delete}} message on some articles. -- Seth Ilys 02:16, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just placing {{msg:delete}} on an article does not mean you are responsible for its deletion. If every time a user adds the tag to the page is called into question, then vandalism cleanup teams will stop doing their jobs and Wikipedia will become overrun with junk. - Mark 02:24, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Gaz (6/1/0) - Ends 12:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I made my first edit on 23 Jan 2003 and have been (mostly) active since then. Recently I have focused my attention more on images. I would like adminship to enable me to clean up orphaned images and to revert vandalism when I find it. I am a programmer and database administrator and would also like the ability to create mySQL queries. - Gaz 11:42, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

FYI, just some numbers: 738 edits, and note he's been here since 2003

Support:

  1. Perl 12:37, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support gladly. Gaz is a true gentleman and a pleasure to work with. I should have nominated him myself. Tannin 12:42, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Michael Snow 17:37, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. cprompt 02:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. Helping via Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates to encouragee WP image makers and photo takers to do their best. Davodd 11:05, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. Elf-friend 18:25, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Less than 1000 edits. That is not many considering the amount of time the user has been here. Also, usage has been sporatic, including a 2 month hiatus. Gaz didn't really catch fire until February 2004. Try another nomination in May 2004, IMHO. Kingturtle 02:13, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. Gaz has done good work here, but it's about 5-6 weeks too early to be nominating yourself. I suggest waiting, Gaz: the reason we draw a distinction between self-nominations and other-nominations is that we have a lot of users who arrive with seemingly the singleminded goal of being admin, which is almost always a very bad idea. I don't think this is the case with you, but I don't want to set a bad precedent. If you're not an admin by the second week of April, I'll nominate you myself. Jwrosenzweig 16:58, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Note: Gaz's request looks more like Gaz wants to be a developer? If that's true, there isn't a vote (weird as this sounds) -- you just have to convince a developer (like Tim Starling) that you should be one, which isn't too hard, I hear. Didn't know if that would be of interest to Gaz. Jwrosenzweig 17:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Er, folks Gaz has been here since January 2003, as in 14 months, not two. In case that makes a difference. Fuzheado 17:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • My apologies for apparently being unable to read the years properly. I guess I have to say I don't know Gaz well enough to vote, then, but I wish him luck. Jwrosenzweig 17:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. BCorr ¤ Брайен 16:11, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC) -- I'm only opposed because I think it's a bit too soon in this case, and I didn't see enough of Gaz's comments on talk pages to get a good enough sense of how well this user "plays with others." Seems to be a good contributor, and I'd support with a bit more time and interactions with others on talk pages.

Requests for bureaucratship

Please add new requests to the top

Cimon avaro (11/3/2) ends 17:45, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have made an accommodation between my administratorial responsibilities and my aspiration to enjoy editing here "just for fun". I am requesting bureaucrat (I can too spell it - if I crib) status for the account User:Cimon avaro only. -- Cimon avaro 17:37, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. -- Infrogmation 18:11, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
  2. - →Raul654 18:12, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
  3. - since the day I arrived, Cimon has been a positive guide for me here, and a model of what a Wikipedia admin ought to be. Jwrosenzweig 18:56, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. - Meelar 20:09, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. - Cimon would never syosop anyone inappropriately, and that's all this poll is about. --Uncle Ed 20:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Hephaestos|§ 23:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. Why is there this inflammatory discussion about "for the account Cimon avaro only?" I think that it's good judgment for him to use only one account to edit, and another to administrate... ugen64 00:34, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
  8. support. Perl 01:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. cprompt 02:03, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support. Elf-friend 18:33, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. But please consider ending your use of User:J-V Heiskanen. Multiple accounts are a bad idea, I think. Kingturtle 05:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Has demonstrated bad judgement and incoherence. And what does "for the account User:Cimon avaro only" mean? How many accounts do you have? --Wik 18:24, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Precisely three. I created User:Sockpuppet to demonstrate the nonsysop interface to my mother. Recently I created a main account User:J-V Heiskanen to use 99% of the time I edit, so I don't accidentally edit a protected page, so I will only have immediate access to administrative powers when I have consciously decided to assume the responsible stance necessary to fulfill the remit of such powers with integrity, rather than in between making tweaks to articles about the Simpsons. My further intention in creating a regular non-sysop account was to prove that it is physically possible to edit without using sysop powers, and do so productively. -- Cimon avaro 18:47, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, that hardly requires proof. I've been doing so for 8 months and 17,000 edits. And if you want to prove it for yourself, it would mean that you refrain from using the Cimon Avaro account, but here you say you will use it when you consciously decide to assume the responsible stance etc. It's easy to edit without sysop powers on one account, when you have another account with sysop powers. --Wik 19:10, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
        • So what exactly is the problem with having multiple accounts? Certainly seems reasonable to me... ugen64 21:34, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Strongly oppose. Cimon avaro is erratic and often unreasonable. 172 07:11, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Although doubtful. Basically, I respect JHV, but this idea seems hard to comprehend. I think institutionalizing sock-puppets is a particularly bad idea. Although... quite another thing would have been if all sysop-accounts and bureaucrat-accounts as a rule were separate from the officer's ordinary account. I could see a meaning in the distinction between a Angela account and the Angela (admin) account.--Ruhrjung 07:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Neutral/Comment:

  1. Is this something to do with you wanting to desysop yourself? Not that bureaucrats can do that, but your recent behaviour on my talk page worries me about your intentions, particularly after you previously asked on this page to never be made a bureaucrat. I will support once you can allay these concerns. Angela. 19:02, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • My wish to edit without sysop priviledges was and remains real. One of the reasons for wishing it to be absolute and irrevocable is amply demonstrated by the above comment by Wik: "It's easy to edit without sysop powers on one account, when you have another account with sysop powers." I was much concerned about Cave trolls comments on the AMA page, and the general tenor of painting our institutions in the worst light. I thought I might have a better podium to defend those institutions if I was not speaking "in my own matter". In an ancillary way I was also very aware that I had not used my sysop features hardly at all for a long time for combating vandalism, or even deleting garbage; and the one time I had actually decided to use them (though I finally balked), it was indeed to block Plautus Satire in a manner I myself later fully realised would have been out of process. When you have dropped your sextant, the article linked thus says it can't be fixed, but only re-certified; and even describes how one would go about doing that. -- Cimon avaro 19:36, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Are you saying you do only want to be a bureaucrat so you can desysop yourself then? Please can you clarify why you want to be one. Angela. 22:42, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • Certes. No I am not going to attempt to desysop myself. If I still intended that, I would now simply self-block Cimon avaro till hell freezes over, and continue as J-V Heiskanen (or would that block my IP too, hmm...). In a more general sense the instrumentality I envision to both the administrative powers for myself has been and would continue to be a lessening of my shameful feeling for not contributing enough to the daily drudgework at Wikipedia, of which I am the happy beneficiary when I edit just for fun. I frequently feel great discomfort when I have to request something from developers, and the tireless work they do fulfilling such requests amply deserves that we try to pay that forward. Now that I have decided that separate accounts is the way to go, I merely will stand prepared to face comments like Wiks and Ruhrjungs above (I do respect both views BTW; going with two actively used accounts was not a slam-dunk for me either). -- Cimon avaro 12:54, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Support - Cimon's answer to Wik convinces me that he has the integrity to do the job well. - Texture 18:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on other Wikipedias

See m:Interwiki requests for adminship.

Possible Misuses of Administrator Powers

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=2810622"