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 Misterrick (talk | contribs) at 23:14, 12 May 2004 (Reposted Oppose Because It Didn't Go Through.). 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 see Wikipedia:List of administrators 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. It is expected that nominees will have good familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures.

Nomination. Most users become administrators by being nominated by another user. Before nominating someone, get permission from them. Your nomination should be indicative that you believe that the user meets the requirements and would be an exemplary administrator. Along with the nomination, please give some reasons as to why you think this editor would make a good administrator.
Self-nomination. If you wish to become an administrator, you can ask someone to nominate you. Self-nominations are accepted, however. If you want to nominate yourself to become an administrator, it is recommended that you wait until you exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure,.
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.

After a minimum 7 day period for comments, if there is general agreement that someone who requests adminship should be given it, then a 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:Mydogategodshat (3/3); closes 09:17, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

See User history. 172 09:17, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. 172 09:17, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jwrosenzweig 16:24, 12 May 2004 (UTC) As before, I support, but I think Mydog did refuse last time and doubt his mind will have changed. And before the objections are raised, I am a theist who does not think this user's name constitutes offense against believers in God (though there are theists who disagree, I know).[reply]
  3. Plenty of experience. Fair minded. Stands by principles. Kingturtle 22:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Good user with a good history... and in his case, the username thing has been beaten to death. It's a non-issue. →Raul654 23:06, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
  5. I will continue to vote yes until this user is finally made an admin. The argument based on the username is inane. - Hephaestos|§ 23:07, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I'll explain my opposition, if it becomes necessary. Maximus Rex 17:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Spade 18:36, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Good user, great editor, offensive user name. Not admin material considering.[reply]
    Besides the user name, are the instances of immature behavior or poor judgment? Kingturtle 22:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    No, as I said he is a particularly good editor, one of the best, a benefit to us all. If he changed his name to something non-offensive I would endorse him enthusiastically. Sam Spade 23:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Pollinator 19:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Once again - we don't need deliberately offensive usernames, which suggest a "chip on the shoulder" attitude that's bound to be reflected in editing.[reply]
    Besides the user name, can you find any examples of a "chip on the shoulder" attitude in this user's 3000+ edits over the past year? Kingturtle 22:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Didn't this go through once already, with My.. refusing? Dysprosia 09:18, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. -- Dissident (Talk)[[]] 18:22, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Guanaco (12/2/0); ends 23:57, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

~ 1950 edits, user since March 1. Seems not unreasonable, interested in process (lots of listing at Speedy deletions, Wikipedia:Images for deletion, dealing with user page redirects of vandals pretending to be Jimbo, vandalism reversion, replacing stub notices with the proper mediawiki message, various fixes, other useful tasks. - Fennec 01:53, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

I originally accepted at 03:15, 6 May 2004, but I've just now decided to move this nomination thing here myself. It was originally commented out on my talk page by Fennec when he asked me whether I would accept a nomination. Guanaco 23:57, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not to have noticed this earlier... I've been a trifle more busy than I anticipated of late :D - Fennec 14:35, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Fennec 01:53, May 6, 2004 (UTC) -- wouldn't hurt if he used the edit summary box just a little more, though :)
  2. Dysprosia 00:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC) good work at Speedy deletions, so would be able to take care of things himself...[reply]
  3. Here for too months, and I've seen good work. Meelar 21:31, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Good contributor and I am not sure 3000 edits is a fair or often applied metric for adminship. GrazingshipIV 21:36, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Masses of vandalism control, I thoroughly approve and support Guanaco's nomination. --Stormie 10:54, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Angela. 14:52, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support - but recommend Guanaco follows the recommendation to provide edit summaries. - Tεxτurε 18:47, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Wikipedia is not Kingturtle's exclusive country club. --"DICK" CHENEY 19:38, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Seems to understand the criteria for speedy deletion, at least. anthony (see warning)
  10. Maximus Rex 04:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  11. What I've seen from him is good. Helpful in watching recent changes. Isomorphic 04:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Michael Snow 20:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. Not here long enough. Not enough edits. Kingturtle 20:26, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too new. --Wik 20:32, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

Comment:

Andrew Yong (8/2/1); ends 20:49, 2004 May 15 2004 (UTC)

I was struck today by the fabulous work at Penang Hokkien, but also recall his various informative edits. Check his work. -- Kaihsu 20:49, 2004 May 8 (UTC)

Awaiting acceptance from Andrew.

Support

  1. Kaihsu
  2. Jiang 22:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC) 1500 edits is enough, considering the quality of his work.[reply]
  3. Been here since August and made over 1450 edits. GrazingshipIV 23:36, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
  4. john 00:53, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Menchi 18:15, 10 May 2004 (UTC), nice stuff on Penang. I remember clearly from last year. --Menchi 18:15, 10 May 2004 (UTC)~[reply]
  6. Jiang likes him. And I like people named Yong. Support. (Whimsy, thy name is jengod.) :) jengod 20:41, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. Wikipedia is not Kingturtle's exclusive country club. --"DICK" CHENEY 19:42, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Looked at his edits and realized that Wikipedia could use someone like this.--Beelzebubs 00:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Far too few edits thus far for me to determine how he responds to different situations. Kingturtle 22:11, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect -- Wikipedia is no bootcamp and not all topics are controversial; those who go for non-controversial articles should not be discriminated. Just curious, how many do you (y'all) think is 'enough'? (I set a soft threshold of 1000.) -- Kaihsu 22:23, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
    He's repeatedly stated a 3000 edit minimum, which I think is too high--it would have taken me years to get there if I wasn't currently unemployed (I've been spending 6-10 hrs/day on WP since March). Niteowlneils 20:23, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    My wonder is why you bother to go through with voting on this basis, when it's fairly clear that you're the only person who feels this way, and that voting on this basis is never ever going to affect if someone gets Adminship? I mean, I understand your argument (although I respectfully disagree), but what's the point of the forlorn stand on the RfA page? Wouldn't it make more sense to work to get some kind of official standard set? john 00:53, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that's not true--rather, it will only have an impact on controversial nominations like User:Cecropia. I disagree with it and wish you wouldn't, though you're of course within your rights. Meelar 01:52, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    I set the bar high. IMHO, to be an admin one must have a lot of experience using wikipedia and a lot of experience interacting with the community. I support those I feel are ready, and I oppose those I feel are not ready. Maybe gradually, in the long run, others will see why I set the bar high, and join me. Still, with that said, I also take my responsibility as a bureaucrat quite seriously; even if I oppose someone's adminship, if this peer group forms a consensus supporting an individual, I do the "paper work" to make that person an admin. Kingturtle 20:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your thoughtful considerations. -- Kaihsu 10:49, 2004 May 10 (UTC)
    Kingturtle, I just want to say that even though I disagree with your 3000 edit minimum idea, this is meant to be a vote, and of course you should register your objection if that is how you feel. It is by no means a "forlorn stand". Stick to your guns, I say! --Stormie 10:57, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
    I don't think this is about voicing one's opinion, regardless how unreasonable or not. It is pointless to object to obviously competent people as admins to just make a point -- which is not even about the person in question really, but a separate "point" that "3000 edits is what I consider good". The issues are different and trying to stick them together confuses the issues and render them all ...pointless.
    But, it's his vote. He's free to use it as a tool to rub his point in (which caused the above concerns) or abuse it or actually use it. His vote. His choice. But as a community, we have offered some gentle advices, and he can ignore it if he so desires. --Menchi 18:15, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah... of course, many admins don't have 3000 edits (myself included); I had barely 1,000 when I became an admin. ugen64 21:30, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
  2. I only looked at a few edits, but they didn't seem very good. anthony (see warning)

Neutral:

  1. I like what I've seen of Andrew's work and I have absolutely nothing against him personally. However, he's stuck to fairly narrow and uncontroversial topics (not that that's a bad thing) and hasn't interjected much on content disputes or policy issues (not that that's a bad thing either, he doesn't seem to have gotten into disputes, no doubt in part because of his consistenly solid and thoughtful contributions). But I can't support because I don't see that he has the experience implementing Wikipedia policy in the cases where admin power is applicable, and, additionally, because I don't believe that we need him as an admin.

    He certainly wouldn't do any harm as an admin, and I think that Andrew's continued work should be encouraged and praised -- but that said, I don't believe that we should grant admin status simply because we like someone or because they've done good work or because they've been around for a while. We should elect people admin because we expect that they will use their admin powers to substantively improve the project. I don't see Andrew using admin powers much, and therefore I don't see a need to support him. -- Seth Ilys 06:47, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree with the tenor of that. We need admins (surely). Admin powers should go to solid contributors. Really, it would be a bad idea if anyone who wanted to be an admin thought profile-raising was required. Charles Matthews 09:24, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Self nominations for adminship

User:Rogper (0/2/1); ends 18:00, 2004 May 19 2004 (UTC)

I'm nominating myself so that I can get those extra rights administrators have (removing pictures, editing locked texts, etc.) I'm administrator on the Swedish wikipedia, and have been an active Wikipedian writer since 12:47, 29 Sep 2003 under my nickname. See User history. Thank you, Rogper 18:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

Oppose:

  1. Tεxτurε 19:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC) - I will not support any nomination for a user who wants to "edit locked texts". Admins do not have the right to edit protected pages. Nothing in your nomination suggests a legitimate reason for you to exercise admin capabilities.[reply]
  2. Misterrick - It seems in my opinion that Rogper is looking for more of a power trip then to be a productive admin. 00:13, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Can you explain what locked texts you want to edit? Kingturtle 22:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for bureaucratship

Please add new requests at the top of this section

Other requests

Possible misuses of administrator powers

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=3555710"