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 Mirv (talk | contribs) at 18:02, 25 May 2004 (=User:Mirv (7/0/1) ends 10:22 UTC, 1 June 2004= fmt). 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. The quality and quantity of a nominee's work here is also a factor. Many Wikipedians take into account the number of edits a candidate has made, as a rough indication of how active the candidate has been. There are no hard guidelines on this, but most users seem to expect between 500 and 1000 edits before they will seriously consider a nomination.

Nominations which are obviously unqualified (those with fewer than 100 edits, for example) may be removed before the voting is complete. Past votes shows that the great majority of Wikipedians will not support such nominations, so they have no chance of success. Nominations may also be removed early if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship.

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:Mirv (7/0/1) ends 10:22 UTC, 1 June 2004

Around 3000 edits since 05:42, 9 Nov 2003 [1]. Mirv will make an excellent administrator. He helps raise the bar for other contributors and is always level-headed. Earlier today I was surprised to find out that Mirv hadn't become an admin a long time ago; he should've been. 172

Thank you 172, I accept the nomination.

Regarding the questions raised by Snowspinner and UninvitedCompany below: As I explained to RickK when he asked, I agreed strongly with the ideas behind the summary, never mind the harsh language in which they were expressed. In retrospect I ought to have asked that the summary be made less abusive (or done so myself) before giving and maintaining my endorsement, and I apologize for not doing so.

I hope this explains things to everyone's satisfaction. —No-One Jones 18:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Support

  1. 172 10:22, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mirv has done a lot of good work on Middle East topics. -- Viajero 10:31, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Danny 10:51, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mirv aka No-One Jones is a great editor, and a good user I will fully support him for sysop! Comrade Nick User Talk Plato:@)---^--- 11:07, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I always thought he already was one. theresa knott 11:18, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I like the idea of an admin named Multiple Independently targetable Re-entry Vehicle... Not to mention ey are an extremely well qualified user. --"DICK" CHENEY 13:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Meelar 13:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. older≠wiser 14:23, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  9. UninvitedCompany 15:43, 25 May 2004 (UTC). See comments below.[reply]
  10. john k 15:48, 25 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Snowspinner 14:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC) Unable to support due to his endorsement of Danny's original statement in the RfC regarding 172 (See [2]).[reply]

Comments

I have indicated my support for Mirv's adminship above. Mirv is a fine, upstanding contributor who has made valuable contributions and who has familiarity with and involvement in admin-related matters. I did note his endorsement of the RfC text noted above, which I consider inappropriate, and all the more so because Mirv did not avail himself of the opportunity to distance himself from the comment when RickK brought it to his attention. However, because this is a relatively minor faux pas in the greater scheme of things, and since it appears to be an isolated event, I still support Mirv for adminship. UninvitedCompany 15:43, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I invite Mirv to explain the endorsement above either here, in e-mail, or on my talk page - prior to it I would have supported, and so I would welcome some explanation, as I would like to support. For the time being, I'm downgrading my vote to neutral. Snowspinner 15:59, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bkonrad (17/0/0), ends 01:05, 29 May 2004

Bkonrad has been here since February and made over 3500 edits. I've worked with him on a large number of pages about U.S. history and can say he is level-headed and is an extreme pleasure to work with. Will make an excellent administrator.-- Decumanus | Talk 05:08, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I gladly accept. Thanks. (Moink asked me about a month ago and I had wanted to wait until after I finished moving--but I suppose now is as good a time as a week from now.) older≠wiser 15:48, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Decumanus | Talk 05:08, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cecropia | Talk 05:37, 22 May 2004 (UTC) Decumanus said it all.[reply]
  3. Three cheers. Kingturtle 06:41, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Thought he was one. Meelar 15:15, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:04, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seems like a fine Wikipedian. Neutrality 20:57, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I've had some disagreements with him, and the experience was painless. He seems like a good candidate for admiral/emperor/whatever this is for. →Raul654 21:14, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Heh --Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 23:23, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Yesyesyesyesyes. :) jengod 00:29, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Acegikmo1 02:09, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Older may not equal wiser, but calmer does equal better, at least for sysops, and Bkonrad has shown a level head and good judgment in abundance. --Michael Snow 17:42, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Angela. 00:52, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Wonderful. Moncrief 07:42, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Danny 10:53, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  15. john k 15:45, 25 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]
  16. Tεxτurε 16:18, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  17. You mean he isn't already? --ALargeElk 16:20, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

User:Tom- (5/1/1), ends 00:35, 28 May 2004

Tom has been here since late February 2004 and made well over 1000 good edits in that time. The primary reason I'm nominating him is however his work initiating and maintaining the article of the week project, with which I think he has demonstrated suitability (and hopefully willingness!) for doing administrative tasks. Fredrik 00:35, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much indeed, I accept :) Tom- 09:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Fredrik 00:35, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Adds good content, interested in administration (as demonstrated by his thoughtful discussion on how best to implement the AOTW idea,) and generally good guy. Isomorphic 01:51, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sounds excellent. He'll be a good one. Neutrality 21:18, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. --"DICK" CHENEY 02:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Meelar 13:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Nothing personal here. I simply don't think Tom- has enough experience in the community yet. I will definitely support in a few months, if his track record continues. Kingturtle 02:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Tom has done some great work setting up the article of the week, but I'm not convinced he yet has enough experience with other areas of Wikipedia. I certainly don't oppose his adminship, but I feel it's slightly too early to support. Angela. 00:52, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

User:Jerzy (21/0/0), ends 00:36, 27 May

Jerzy has made 5000+ edits since September 2003. In addition to many fine edits, he has in the past been involved with organizing votes for deletion and cleanup and I believe he will put his powers to good use. --Jiang 00:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting acceptance from Jerzy of nomination.
My goodness.
  • In favor, i will point out that it would save effort by the ever-generous Angela, since i could do my own deletes when they are required for moves.
  • Potentially on the negative side:
    • I've got a fairly odd brain, perhaps most relevantly when it comes to making subjective judgements; some might want to think hard enough about this proposal as to consider how well i understand and compensate for those oddities.
    • I am a confirmedly pseudonymous user, and some may decide that makes me in some senses less accountable than typical hard-core editors who, if i perceive correctly, are almost always more fully public.
    • I have a few internally imbedded insects, and i might nag the community about them, a little more often as an admin than i presently do (and if i do, then you were warned [smile]). Two policies come to mind in this regard; altho i think they need to be complied with (and altho i correct others' deviations from them), i consider them both bone-headed and look forward to the time when others agree with me:
      • Day, month, and year of birth and death in the first sentence of a bio.
      • Applying the casing rules for article titles to titles of sections.
    • I do not consistently monitor WP:VP, WP:CU, or WP:VfD, tho i regard doing so a "civic responsibility". I'd like to do a lot better at that, but hope only to do a little better, and may do no better.
    • My understanding of an admin's mandatory responsibilities is "do no harm, or back off when you realize you did". I consider that a shockingly low standard, but that's the extent of the commitment i'd see myself as taking on.
    • I'm the sort of person who would get this far, without having hired a campaign manager. Hey, there's no WP:Campaign manager page; where do i recruit one?
    • My sense of humor is nowhere near as clever as i usually imagine it is.
That's what i've got; i accept the nomination; you decide.
--Jerzy(t) 15:17, 2004 May 20 (UTC)

Support

  1. Jiang 00:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems to have a good understanding of Wikipedia. Angela. 00:58, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Tεxτurε 02:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jengod 03:25, May 20, 2004 (UTC) Meep.
  5. Fuzheado 03:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC) - thought was already one.[reply]
  6. Fair, even-minded. Interesting in custodial activities. Kingturtle 06:04, 20 May 2004 (UTC)~[reply]
  7. Rhymeless 07:08, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Bien sur! Dysprosia 09:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Fuelbottle | Talk 12:49, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Meelar 13:12, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SimonP 13:33, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Definitely. —No-One Jones 14:51, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oddness is an asset. Catherine | talk 16:00, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I like openness. What's the worst that can happen? -- Cecropia | Talk 19:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  15. DrBob 19:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:57, 2004 May 20 (UTC)
  17. I have never been this amused by an acceptance of a nomination. Snowspinner 20:20, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Some day, people will give this man awards just to hear his acceptance speeches. Everything I've seen from him is good. Isomorphic 01:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  19. At the risk of sounding clichéd, I thought he already was one. - Herbert 01:28, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
  20. Support. Fabulous choice! Moncrief 03:23, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
  21. Decumanus | Talk 04:57, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:Colipon(2/5/2) 18:38, 26 May 2004

A professional academic, one of the site's best users, a fairly active user since 8/03, and an excellent contributor to the site's China-related articles (among the strongest topics on Wikipedia) 172 18:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting acceptance from Colinpon of nomination.

Support

  1. 172 18:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutrality 21:19, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Good and promising editor, not but ready yet, IMO. Many breaks of weeks or longer in editing, and many of the 700 edits are from failure to Preview or mark as Minor. Would like to look again in a few months. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:55, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. What Cecropia said. Snowspinner 18:57, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, the quality of his edits should offset these trivial weaker areas. Wikipedia needs talent and expertise, and more over it needs more professionals like Colipon, not necessarily people who are always online. 172 19:00, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, fine editor and promising, but aren't we adding sysops to help with dog work, which requires some presence? Of course, people can become admins and not be able to devote time later for various reasons. Just want to see more consistent track record. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very likely to support once the user reaches 1000 edits, and when a level of sustained activity is demonstrated. I think admins should be people who follow Wikipedia pretty closely. Snowspinner 19:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, due largely to insightful comments by Isomorphic below. If this guy has alot of expertise w topics thats great, but w his lack of free time and small number of edits its hard to imagine he aught to spend what little time he spends here w the chores of being an admin. Its not ment to be a status symbol or badge of merit, but rather an added responsibility. Sam [Spade] 05:25, 20 May 2004 (UTC)~[reply]
  4. Not enough experience here. Kingturtle 06:06, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Not enough experience. Moncrief 18:26, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

Comment

  • User has made about 700 total edits, but only 20 in the last 3 months. I am not sure they are active enough to be an admin. Maximus Rex 18:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks more like Colipon's back after a long break. That's not unusual. I didn't make many contributions between 9/03 and 2/04, but I retained my adminship and periodically stopped by. 172 18:53, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know him well enough to vote, but I would like to mention that, if Colipon hasn't been around much recently, there are a _lot_ of new approaches and policies that I would want to know that he/she was familiar with -- frequent editors, we can assume they've stumbled upon most of the policies (or we've seen them acknowledge them in action), but often-absent users have a lot to catch up on, I think. This may be a great editor who deserves our thanks but is so frequently absent that it wouldn't make sense for them to be admin -- if they wanted to use any of an admin's powers, they'd constantly need to be reviewing all the changes since they were last here before taking action. Does that make any sense? :-) Jwrosenzweig 19:05, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that 172 is misunderstanding the purpose of adminship. I agree that Wikipedia could use more professional academics, but they aren't automatically more qualified for adminship. Being an admin is like being a cross between a janitor and a manager. Either way, neither role requires being an expert in any given subject matter. The most relevant qualities for an admin are responsibility, maturity, respect for the community, ability to work with others, and an understanding of Wikipedia's policies. Isomorphic 20:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, I'd argue that trying to get a good content editor involved in administrative matters is potentially a waste of human resources. Isomorphic 21:12, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's never been grounds to deny anyone adminship, though I guess it is a form of flattery. "You're too smart for this mind-numbing work?" :) Fuzheado 03:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL. I just meant we don't necessarilly want to encourage our best writers to spend their time fighting vandals, maintaining VfD, and such. Certainly I wouldn't oppose for this, but I won't support just because someone writes good content. I need to believe that they would use adminship well, and that there's some reason why they should have admin powers. Those are separate issues. Isomorphic 05:16, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Self nominations for adminship

Self-nominators, please review the qualifications above. Self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure." To be considered seriously you should have an account name that is many months old. Most voters will want to see many hundreds of edits. Anything less will be regarded as obviously unqualified.


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=3727210"