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 Cribcage (talk | contribs) at 05:56, 20 April 2004 (=UninvitedCompany (11/3); ends 18:56, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)=). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Communitypage

Requests for adminship are requests made for a Wikipedian to be made an administrator. These requests are made via nomination.

Important notes

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.

If you vote, please update the heading. If you nominate someone, you may wish to vote to support them.

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. If you want to nominate another user, please notify them by leaving a message on their talk page in advance, as a courtesy. If the user wishes not to be nominated, please abide by that decision. Along with the nomination, please give some reasons as to why you think this editor would make a good administrator.
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). Other users 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. Please also give some reasons as to why you think you would make a good administrator.
Anonymous users. Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or support or oppose nominations. The absolute minimum requirement to be involved with adminship matters is to have a username in the system. This requirement has been added to prevent abuses of the system.

After a minimum 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. If there is uncertaintly, in the mind of even one bureaucrat, at least one bureaucrat should suggest an extension, so that it is clear that it is the community decision which is being implemented.

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 ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.

Please place new nominations at the top

User:AndyL (3/6/5); ends 04:10, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

AndyL's contributions are always scrupulously informed and scholarly. Although he hasn't been a user for a long time, he works on a daily basis and is extremely active, methodical, and efficient. His prodigious user history (almost two thousand edits in a remarkably short time span) already establishes him among the most valuable WP users in the site's history. He is so productive and such a good task manager on a daily basis that he puts to shame a sizable number of the other academics on this site (and esp. myself, I'll grudgingly admit). 172 04:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. 172 04:05, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support, looks like he knows what he's doing Comrade Nick
  3. Danny 02:53, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC).

Oppose:

  1. Although this user has made a lot of contributions, he has only been a logged in user for 18 days. I will definitely consider supporting him for adminship after more time has passed. Maximus Rex 04:15, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Agreed with Mirv.....although I might have to wait till 8 weeks on principle. :-) Still, an excellent user with an incredible track record already. Jwrosenzweig 15:44, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • This is taking the fetishization of procedures way too far. Had he made the same number of contributions of the same quality over a period of, say two years, we wouldn't have a single vote in opposition. The short time span of his user history only proves the incredible rate which he's been working. The world's being turned upside down if this is viewed as a reason to hold off on voting for adminship. BTW, AndyL's also proven to be remarkably good at diffusing tensions on WP. On his own, I bet he would be able to prevent dozens of edit wars in the time that other users want to wait before voting to grant admin status. This is clearly an exceptional case and there are compelling pragmatic reasons to disregard how long he's been a logged in user. 172 15:53, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • 172, all I'll say is this. Admins need to prove they can stay out of trouble. Right now, Andy's made so many edits in so little time that I want to wait a bit to make sure I see others react to his edits, and then see how he responds to their reactions. I think he'll respond fine, but I want to wait and see. Now may my vote be considered legitimate? :-) Jwrosenzweig 16:00, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) P.S. What pragmatic reasons, may I ask? I'm very open to hearing and considering them.
  3. Tεxτurε 16:19, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) - agree with Jwrosenzweig.
  4. I agree, its too soon, but please try again after another six weeks. Warofdreams 18:49, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Too soon -- will certainly be renominated after a bit. BCorr|Брайен 18:58, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
  6. No way. AndyL completely disrespects my work and I shudder to think of the retribution he would bring down upon me if he was an admin. TDC 21:05, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
    1. Can we have an example of a conflict between you two to look at please? Snowspinner 22:01, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      1. I assume it's a reference to their edit war over Allegations of human rights abuses in Castro's Cuba. Niteowlneils 22:17, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        1. There are other topics in which TDC has come to blow with Andy, and others, including me. see Talk:Fascism, for instance. john 04:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. No-One Jones 13:50, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) If anyone deserves an early adminship, it's him; however a little bit of seasoning and experience never hurt anybody. I'll be the first to support after another six three weeks or so. [I hadn't realized how long he had been contributing as Andylehrer. Anyone agreeing with me was agreeing with a previous version of this comment] —No-One Jones 05:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Mirv. LUDRAMAN | T 16:28, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. What's the hurry? Isomorphic 18:38, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Slrubenstein 18:40, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) I have to agree with Mirv and Ludraman. But I urge others to keep a sharp eye on AndyL, and make him a sysop as soon as is reasonable -- thus far he has demonstrated an absolute commitment to serious scholarship, clear writing, and congeniality. I am certain that he would make a superb administrator.
  5. john 04:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC). I'd note that while the User:AndyL has only been about for 18 days, he posted for an additional 20 days or so as User:Andylehrer before he, by his own account, forgot his password. But still, perhaps, too early - nevertheless, I think he definitely could do the job. john 04:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Gentgeen (8/0/0); ends 21:55, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Gentgeen has been around since October and has over 2,000 edits. Gentgeen knows his way around wikipedia and is familiar with the policies and guidelines. He has been involved in maintenance tasks such as reverting vandalism and transwiking pages to more appropriate places; admin abilities will help him do this better. Maximus Rex 21:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Maximus. I guess I accecpt. Gentgeen 19:35, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Maximus Rex 21:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Danny 21:57, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:15, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Definitely support. Angela
  5. Holy crap - he's not one already? Support 100%. →Raul654 23:35, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Tuf-Kat 03:33, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Absolutely. :-) Jwrosenzweig 17:13, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Yup. Isomorphic 18:38, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:


Neutral:

UninvitedCompany (11/3); ends 18:56, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

~500 edits, been here for over six months, under this account. Thoughtful and considerate contributor, not prone to rash judgements. Ex-arbitrator. Worthy admin. Martin 18:56, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Martin. I would be happy to accept. UninvitedCompany 03:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Martin
  2. SweetLittleFluffyThing
  3. Support, slightly tentatively, but I think he can be trusted with admin powers. Angela
  4. I find it amazing that he isn't already one, and it would be one of the many examples of a bad decision by majority rule if he isn't promptly voted in. Sam Spade 07:17, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. BCorr|Брайен 12:22, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC). Will make an excellent admin, And in any case, people are free to exercise their "right to leave," take a break, and to come back, or to change user names.
  6. sannse (talk) 22:08, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. --Daeron 06:20, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) User:Kat was an excellent contributor who discussed pages before editing other people careful work. UninvitedCompany also seems to be honest and provide constructive feedback.
  8. Kingturtle 13:41, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Jwrosenzweig 15:54, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) Agreed with Daeron, especially as UC has never made any efforts to hide or confuse previous identities. And yes, Louis Kyu Won Ryu was pretty transparent. :-)
  10. Cautiously support. LUDRAMAN | T 16:32, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support. His comments below seem reasonable, and what I've seen from him was good. And I trust the judgement of those who voted in support before me. Isomorphic 18:48, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  12. UninvitedCompany's comments are good enough for me. I'll add that I think admin status should depend on length of stay and quality of contributions, but not on frequency of visits. Cribcage 05:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Not active enough. 500 edits in over six months? That's less than 3 per day. And what does Martin mean with "under this account" - does he have another? --Wik 19:20, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
    Ah, I found out that this is a reincarnation of User:Kat, who left in September 2003 only to come right back under this different name. Such behaviour should not be rewarded. --Wik 00:20, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Tεxτurε 03:38, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Sorry, not nearly active enough. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:16, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Other:

  • I'd like to hear what UninvitedCompany has to say about the nomination. Maximus Rex 04:13, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd like to hear what UninvitedCompany has to say about Wik's revelation of previous username. - Gaz 07:58, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It has been something of an open secret for some time that I edited, previously, as User:Kat. Subsequently, I left the project (of my own volition), and returned about a month later with a different attitude. As such, I did not see any reason to continue as User:Kat. For what it's worth, my return predated the creation of the Wikipedia:Sock puppet policy. In any case, I'm here to help write an encyclopedia. My prior user name has become known as a direct result of my being forthright about it in my dealings with Jimbo and the arbitration committee, not as a result of any technical investigation. And yes, before someone asks, I did make a number of edits as User:Louis Kyu Won Ryu -- an alter ego really -- mainly making policy suggestions. I quit four months ago, when the arbitration committee started its work in earnest and I felt a certain compulsion to become a model Wikipedian; in any case, I doubt if anyone was fooled. UninvitedCompany 03:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd like to hear the basis for Angela's hesitation. I'd tend to support, pending acceptance of nomination, but Angela's remark gives me pause. What's the deal? Cribcage 22:43, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Objection seems to stem from some discussion dealing with arbitration - see talk page for Uninvited Company. Snowspinner
    • I wasn't sure if I was supposed to say, but now that Wik has done so anyway, my hesitation was based on the multiple names issue. It had nothing to do with arbitration. Angela. 23:28, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, just goes to show you sometimes careful research doesn't pay off. =) Snowspinner 23:31, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Uninvitedcompany, I see that you have gone through some changes in your attitude toward Wikipedia and the power structure herein. What is your current position on your 2 Sep 2003 comment about the alleged "hegemony of Wales and the Cabal, and their systematic efforts to paper over matters with a false consensus"? Kingturtle 06:01, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I am pleased that Jimbo has started to MeatBall:DevolvePower. The creation of the Wikimedia foundation and the creation of the arbitration committee are important steps in this direction. While each of these groups will take time to mature and become effective in the community, their presence and Jimbo's support for them speaks volumes. I am also pleased that policy discussions are taking place here rather than on the mailing list. Further, I am pleased to see that steps are being taken to separate technical authority from decisionmaking authority through the creation of the "steward" and "bureaucrat" roles. While there are some countertrends that are unsettling, overall the project governance is much improved, IMO, since September. UninvitedCompany 12:27, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nohat (31/1/1); ends 19:11, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Nohat has done a ton of good work. I've run across his articles on pronunciation, as well as the nice logos :) Has been here since June, and has close to 2000 contributions. Dori | Talk 19:11, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Dori. I'm flattered and I accept. The Wikipedia community can be confident that I will use the admin powers only for the forces of good and within the guidelines and policies set for admins. Nohat 19:18, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)

Support

  1. Dori | Talk 19:11, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Adam Bishop 19:14, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Tεxτurε 19:24, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. A fine choice. Jwrosenzweig 19:25, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Angela
  6. UninvitedCompany - Nohat has contributed both to articles and to the thankless work over at the Wikipedia:Arbitration committee
  7. Of course. Long overdue. About time someone gave him a "hat" :-) --Uncle Ed 20:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Duh. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 20:57, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
  9. GrazingshipIV 22:57, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Meelar 22:58, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  11. Tannin 23:05, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) A sharp tongue who gives as good as he gets, but a true gentleman and an excellent nomination.
  12. Danny 23:18, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  13. 172 00:13, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  14. BCorr|Брайен 00:33, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC) Has my complete support. Plus, anyone who has cats named Force and Balthasar (デビド･フリドランドのウェッブ･サイト) has earned my support ;-) -- BCorr|Брайен 00:33, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Support. The hat does not make the man. One minor point against for POV support for the Forces of Good in his acceptance comment. (On a tangent; capability for crisp rhetoric as preclusionary criterion would eliminate 85 percent of current admins.) -- Cimon 01:11, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Maximus Rex 01:39, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  17. Kingturtle 02:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  18. Hephaestos|§ 02:44, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  19. Cecropia 03:35, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) Me too.
  20. Cribcage 04:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  21. jengod 05:20, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC) Me 22.
  22. Michael Snow 15:18, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) No, I'm 22 (see the vote count).
  23. SweetLittleFluffyThing 15:30, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  24. Good contributor as far as I know, but I'm really voting because of Kokiri's comment below. Isomorphic 16:04, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  25. Thought he already was! -- Seth Ilys 20:56, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  26. Tuf-Kat 21:09, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
  27. --Lst27 00:04, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  28. Gaz 08:13, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  29. Flockmeal 22:20, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
  30. Blessed are the hatless. LUDRAMAN | T 16:35, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  31. Warofdreams 19:15, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Liftarn 07:37, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) He has done some questionable things. I don't think he's ready for becoming an admin yet.

Neutral

  1. I had once a problem with Nohat when he changed the spelling of a romanization (Hangul/Hangeul) on some pages without engaging in any discussion beforehand. Nohat now approached me to give me an opportunity to bring this up here on RfA (see: User_talk:Kokiri). I had already forgotten about the incident, and just wanted to say that I thought it was a very noble thing to approach me. Kokiri 12:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments

"Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's WikiMan!"

(Narrator voice-over:)
WikiMan, faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound... it's WikiMan!
Working by day as mild-mannered Nohat, he transforms in times of crisis into WikiMan to use his super powers for the forces of good and to defeat the forces of evil....
WikiMan! For truth! Justice! and the Wikipedian way!
  • Had to do it... that last change to "for the forces of good" just sent me off on a tangent... - Tεxτurε 20:40, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Zero0000 (18/5/1); ends 21:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This person is a rare combination of somebody that is both well-informed on Middle-Eastern history and current events as well as takes a professional (read: unbiased and cool) attitude towards article management and discussion. These kinds of people should be cherished on Wikipedia. -- Dissident 21:29, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I accept the nomination. Thanks for all the comments, both positive and negative. To Angela and Cecropia: yes of course I understand and accept that restriction. --Zero 00:41, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Dissident 21:29, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support, of course. Great editor. Danny 22:32, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. Secretlondon 22:38, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. WP need more people like him. BL 23:22, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. If people engage in edit wars with him, he can now protect the page and make the needed changes. ChrisDJackson 01:37, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    Eh, that would be a violation of policy. -- Dissident 03:31, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    In my support below, I'm assuming Zero0000 would not take ChrisDJackson's advice. Zero? Cecropia 06:52, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. No-One Jones 18:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. Zero has a hard edge that he would do well to remediate. I disagree with some of his writings, but that is not what this is about. I'm impressed with his intelligence and skill and would like to hear an expression from him that he would "count to ten" before crafting his talk responses and admin duties. So, cautiously support. Cecropia 06:48, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) (BTW, did he ever accept the nomination?)
  8. Support. john 06:57, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Valuable contributor, support -- Viajero 14:07, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support, though I think he will need to be careful not to use admin powers in articles he is involved with. Angela
  11. 172 00:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  12. Fully Support we need people who know middle eastern history! Comrade Nick
  13. Support, if he can write neutrally on the Middle East. On the other hand, given my Jewish heritage I must question MY OWN ability to write neutrally on that subject. :-)) --Uncle Ed 12:36, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  14. Tεxτurε 16:57, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  15. Martin 18:57, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  16. --Lst27 00:04, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  17. Support. I've looked over some of his article edits and some talk page edits. Seems knowledgeable about subjects that really need someone knowledgeable. Doesn't appear to have an agenda. I don't see that he has any problems communicating with other editors. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:43, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  18. Good enough record all things considered GrazingshipIV 07:22, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
  19. Cribcage 05:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Oppose:

  1. Too many edit wars. I feel this user is contentious. Kingturtle 21:50, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. anthony (see warning) 22:36, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. I get a bad feeling about this person. He was a very emotional and non-considerate arguer: Talk:Permutation Hfastedge 05:06, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Agreed with Kingturtle and Hfastedge. --Αλεξ Σ 23:08, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I appreciate his attention to detail, as well as his knowledge and writting talent in his major areas of contribution, as do those that support him, but adminship has nothing to do with that, nor will adminship or lack thereof effect his ability to perform in these areas. The skills that are relevant to adminship are interpersonal communication and critical thinking. I am not confident with him in these respects, in concurrence with the assesments of those above. See for example, Talk:Permutation Kevin Baas 19:47, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Where in Talk:Permutation? I only see article discussion. - Tεxτurε 20:33, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Ofcourse you only see article discussion. Anything else would be inappropriate for an article talk (a.k.a. discussion) page. I am refering to the latter part of the page, where he discusses the article with people. It should be pretty easy to find. Kevin Baas 16:31, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • Honestly, all I see there is someone arguing firmly on a highly technical discussion. Perfectly decent people knowledgeable in arcana tend to do that. I'd have to see something more than that to reconsider my positive vote.Cecropia 16:46, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
          • Clearly, there is a debate. This was never disputed. A debate doesn't neccessarily imply anything "negative";. (-Or "ositive", for that matter.) This was never suggested. I cannot point you to anything but words on a page, i.e. "discussion". I'm sorry if this is not enough for you. I can't fathom how one could possibly operate on wikipedia with such a threshold.
          • As I feel I have made fairly obvious, I am pointing out a discussion that may be informative for people to examine and critique on the basis of the interpersonal communication and critical thinking skills used therein. This can always be done. Empty rhetoric aside. Kevin Baas 19:27, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
          • At risk of being ostentatious, let me clarify what I think the difference in assesment strategy between me and Cecropia is. In a word, I'm more conservative when it comes to putting people in power. I will in general vote "no" more often than "yes", and often for subtle reasons. Issues can always be brought to an administrator's attention, but it is much more difficult when an administrator is an issue, which, without sufficient selection pressure, is just as likely (given that issues are generated by people). I.e. rather a few really good administrators than a lot of not-so-good adminstrators. Kevin Baas 22:23, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
            • Guidelines above says: "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." I'm not arguing your point, and of course you can vote for or against for any reason, but do you feel that policy should be discussed and maybe changed? Cecropia 23:40, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
              • I feel that the situation is not as straightforward as the guidelines are worded, namely, that there are functional and political forces which should be taken into account. I will discuss it on the proper page. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Kevin Baas 09:51, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Also see User talk:Zero0000, discussion with Stevertigo (sv) regarding revert wars.

Other:

  1. Neutral - but I do want to say that I think Hfastedge has it quite wrong. Charles Matthews 16:15, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. Has a highly specialized editing pattern and Too new. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&target=Zero0000&limit=500&offset=0 128.83.101.111
    • Anon - void. LUDRAMAN | T 01:47, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Hmmm.....I've heard good things about Zero0000, but everytime I've seen him in action, I see a user who seems to be working behind the scenes to "rally troops" and coordinate efforts in order to win edit wars/discussions. Now, I know that can happen for innocent reasons (sometimes a troll needs to be handled collectively), but it makes me nervous to see it as what I perceive to be a natural state of affairs for Zero. I'd like to see some examples of cool and calm behavior? I can see myself being convinced, but I need more than normal "great guy" comments to commit -- I'd like it if both sides pointed to instances. Thanks. :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    I haven't decided on my vote yet but isn't building a concensus what we want to happen? What has Zero done when his rally failed? Fought on his own or stepped back to accept the will of the majority? (I don't know - this is a real question) - Tεxτurε 14:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Self nominations for adminship

Please add new requests at the top of this section

Earl Andrew (1/0/0) (UTC); ends 04:02, 27 April, 2004 (UTC)

Hello there, I am nominating myself. I think I have been here for a while, since autumn anyways, and I have god knows how many edits. (just check my user contribs). I've finally stumbled across this page, and I've always wanted to be admin. Mainly because, I feel I can contribute to the main page. Anyways, that's me. I hope that you all accept me! Earl Andrew 04:02, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  • Support - someday we will get all those Ontario communities finished! Adam Bishop 04:25, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:


Comment:

User:Roozbeh (13/1/2)

I wish to ask for adminship status, as it's a burden for me sometimes to find an admin at hand. I want the access to make two things easier for me: a) swapping the place of a redirect page and the main article, and b) reverting clear vandalism (or newbie-ism) easier. I can't find any certain reason for why I'll be a good admin, but I have good experience in Wikipedia adminship, since I started the Persian Wikipedia and have admin rights there. There, I usually follow the Recent Changes and fix everything necessary, but here I only do that for my watchlist. Roozbeh 15:18, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Stats: 700+ edits, been here since Dec 03. LUDRAMAN | T 01:55, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Hemayat kardan (support). Danny 16:23, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. BL 13:52, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Tεxτurε 14:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    Give him a chance.--Ryan524 20:56, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Reviewed edit history, liked what I saw. Seems like a good candidate. Cribcage 06:33, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. We need more sysops from the Axis of Evil. --Wik 06:53, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. - Hephaestos|§ 13:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. Roozbeh has been amazingly calm considering the personal attacks 69.111.53.180 has made against him. Angela
  8. GrazingshipIV 22:59, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support 172 00:11, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support. Morwen 17:58, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Very much agreed with Angela. Jwrosenzweig 19:55, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  12. Tuf-Kat 21:17, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Support! We need a sysop like him Comrade Nick

Oppose

  1. IMHO, still needs more experience here. Kingturtle 02:45, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I have reservations, as I would lean more toward support if he has 1000-2000 edits since December. If somebody can persuade me to change my vote to support, I'd be more than willing to comply. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 00:44, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
    I guess I may count as "somebody", since I have something to add! I consider the reason I didn't have more than 1000 edits was that I was busy with creating the Persian Wikipedia from scratch. I have about 500+ edits since January 30 there. Roozbeh 17:22, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. I concur with Merovingian, although Roozbeh's knowlegable and sedate handing of the anon's complaint below does him much credit. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:04, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments

I object to this person's gain of admin status for the following reason. In the Persian Wikipedia where he is the ONLY admin, he has consistently demonstrated a mentality of dictatorship and immediate banning of others who do not submit to his personal taste on matters. As an exmple, the word he has chosen for "Encyclopaedia" in Persian Wikipedia, is an old, 100% Arabic, and stupidly ostentatious word for encyclopaedia, lingering from the old times where showing off Arabic knowledge was sadly a common practice among the learned in Iran. At least 4 people asked him to please change the word (the word is so stupid that even Arabs themselves don't use this pompous word) and he simply refuses to respect other people's wishes. This is just one example. Every time someone makes a change to a page that he personally does not like, he reverts, and is quick to ban people. He banned me when I protested to him why he was altering my posts in a discussion area. He has also said (and I quote directly from his own post) "Wikipedia is not a democracy", yet in the same posting where a number of people had protested to his choice of Arabic words, he said let's vote on this. Yet, he didn't hold any voting process; and yet, he says that Wikipedia is not a democracy. So if Wikipedia is not a democracy, why vote? And how can others who like to participate get past such petty dictators? - 69.111.53.180, 14 April 2004

I suppose anonymous contributors don't have a vote here, but there are valid objections that I need to answer about the Persian wikipedia. My exact words "Wikipedia is not a democracy" was taken from the Polling guidelines page, and I mentioned we need a consensus or at least we need to have a proper poll. I guess it's apparent that it's not me that's required to hold a poll on the Persian wikipedia, everybody can start a poll. (That said, my count of users registered on the Persian wikipedia for or against the change the above user is asking for, was 1 for the change, and 2 against it. There is definitely no consensus.)
I have also asked on the Persian Wikipedia for other sysop candidates, and on the meta for bureaucrat status on the Persian wikipedia [1], so I can get rid of these kinds of annoying situations where people blame me personally for enforcing a policy of wikipedia's.
I also wish to add that the certain guy who has posted the previous comment is currently the only banned IP address on the Persian wikipedia, for continued harsh personal attacks and abuse even after being referred to the No_personal_attacks page ("You sh**-eater wish to discuss things with me?", "Do you have some sickness or what?", "You are so dishonest and stupid that..."). The "altering of my posts in a discussion area" he is referring to, were me censuring words like "sh**", or removing sentences like the above examples which had no factual value.
I have also never reverted this person's contributions, I have only reverted his "reverts" which were losing valuable edits (pronounciation guides for a poem and NPOVization). I wish to ask for an example of a single case where I have reverted a contribution by him or anyone else on the Persian Wikipedia. Roozbeh 13:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If everybody takes a quick look at the history of Tehran page you will see a good example of what I mean about this person. Besides the fact that the English Wikipedia is not a place to interject Persian or Arabic words in articles, he also includes wrong information, and when corrected, stubbornly insists on imposing his personal taste like an obnoxious little child. This is NOT the type of behaviour that an admin should have. His affliction is so severe that he could not even help restraining himself while his self-nomination for adminship is pending. - 69.111.53.180, 14 April 2004

I believe this is proof enough that the anonymous user above is in for a personal vandetta against me. My case on Tehran is definitely backed by many sources, as I just explained on Talk:Tehran. As of interjecting original spelling of the words in the original languages, I wish to bring the attention to articles like China, Muammar al-Qaddafi, or Duma, all of which contain original spellings. I definitely won't let my adminship request get in the way of me contributing facts to Wikipedia. Even if the request gets rejected, I will continue to behave the same way I have been behaving, specially for articles related to Iran, since I live in Iran, and I have valuable factual resources at my hand. Anyway, I'm getting tired of following this certain user's contributions and fixing his mangling or removal of information (or, ah, signing his posts for him). Roozbeh 22:58, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • You make a good case for self-nomination. Can I ask for an example of where you have needed to swap the article and redirect and not found an admin? Was there support for this action or was it independent on your part? - Tεxτurε 16:11, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • It was independent on my part. But nobody had objected, or objected to the idea after I moved the page the non-sysop way (losing some history and all). It was for the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi article, which I did the wrong technical thing after all, and got a ticket. It wouldn't have happened if I had admin access. Roozbeh 13:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Reverting newbie-ism? Not really a good thing. Newbie contributions should be fixed if faulty, not reverted. LUDRAMAN | T 01:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • By newbie-ism I meant cases like somebody testing Wikipedia to see if he can add his name at the middle of the article, or remove the whole contents, to see if Wikipedia really does what it claims to. Like my recent revert of the Omar Khayyam article. Roozbeh 13:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

Please add new requests at the top of this section

Other requests

Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on other Wikimedia projects can be made at m:Requests for permissions.

Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta can be made at m:Administrator.
Current policy states that any sysop on any wikipedia can become a sysop automatically on meta. This policy is currently disputed. See m:Talk:Administrator

Requests to mark a user as a bot can be made at m:Requests for permissions following consensus at wikipedia talk:bots that the bot should run.

Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.

Possible misuses of administrator powers

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=3262970"