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 Sjc (talk | contribs) at 09:19, 15 September 2004 (→[[User:CJCurrie|CJCurrie]] (10/1/3) ends 15:49 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

Requests for adminship (not to be confused with requests for arbitration at WP:RFAr) is a page to nominate yourself or others to become a Wikipedia administrator, also known as "sysop". Admins have access to a few technical features that help with Wikipedia maintenance. Please see the reading list and how-to guide before applying here. For current admins, see the list of administrators; for users who were recently made administrators, see recently created admins. Boilerplate questions for candidates can be inserted using {{subst:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Candidate questions}}.

Rules

Administrator status is granted to known and trusted members of the community who are familiar with Wikipedia policies. Administrators have no special authority on Wikipedia, but are held to higher standards. Because admins have been confirmed by the community as trusted editors, they are perceived by many, particularly new, users as the official face of Wikipedia. Therefore they should take care to be courteous, exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with other users. Nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities before adminship will be granted. Most new administrators have at least three to four months of participation and more than 1000 edits. You can nominate yourself, but the number and quality of your contributions may be scrutinised more closely if you do this so it is advisable to exceed usual expectations before doing so.

If you wish to nominate someone, get their permission and then give reasons on this page as to why they would make a good administrator. Nominations will remain for seven days so the community can vote and comment on the application. Bureaucrats may choose to extend this where the consensus is unclear (because consensus is subjective, bureaucrats have some discretion, but the threshold on this page is roughly 80% support). Nominations which are clearly not going to gain sufficient support may be removed earlier to prevent the discussion causing ill feelings, which can make it more difficult for the nominee to seek adminship later. However, keep in mind that most editors don't visit Wikipedia daily, so a reasonable amount of time should be allowed. Some people believe all nominations should be allowed to run their course, and disagree with having them removed early. If your nomination is rejected, perhaps because you are too new or inexperienced, please wait a reasonable period of time before applying again.

Vote in the appropriate lists and optionally add a short comment. Don't discuss other people's votes in the vote list itself. If you want to comment on other people's votes or comments, please do that in the Comments section below every nomination. Also, when voting, please update the heading of the section that you are voting in. The vote tally format is as follows: (Support/Oppose/Neutral).

Please note that anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or vote.

What is consensus?

There is no hard and fast rule on what constitutes consensus to promote to admin. However, since numerical tallying has become usual in RfA, be aware that most Wikipedians consider 75% approval to be the minimum for promotion, and 80% to ensure promotion. In between those numbers, bureaucrats are expected to use their discretion to determine whether consensus has been reached. In extraordinary cases, promotion might be granted or denied outside the 75%-80% range if, as an example, sockpuppetry has been involved.

Current nominations

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.

Current time is 17:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)


CJCurrie (10/1/3) ends 15:49 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CJCurrie is a PhD history candidate at Queen's University in Kingston Ontario. He has been with us since April 2004 and has focussed largely on Canadian topics. His articles are thoroughly researched and meticulous and his editing has been problem free. He's also avoided any conflict with other editors. AndyL 15:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I accept this nomination. I've become extremely interested in Wikipedia as of late, and I'm willing (and able) become involved at the next level, beyond simply writing articles. CJCurrie 20:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Support

  1. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Gzornenplatz 17:08, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  3. -- orthogonal 17:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC). We represent the Lollipop Guild, The Lollipop Guild, The Lollipop Guild / And in the name of the Lollypop Guild, / We wish to welcome you to Muchkinland.
  4. Seems a strong user. Andre 19:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. A very strong user - Tεxτurε 19:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Lst27 21:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. —No-One Jones (m) 21:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. [[User:Anárion|Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ]] 22:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. MerovingianFile:Atombomb.gifTalk 04:28, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Careful & well-mannered. A solid contributor.
  11. Sjc 09:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Support; thoughtful and careful work which will translate well into adminship.

Oppose

  1. Will support after 2,000 edits. blankfaze | (беседа!) 16:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Cannot get a clear picture on community involvement. Hard-working, certainly, but I have no real way of knowing the level of CJ's knowledge of policies at this point in time. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:18, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Grunt. I certainly don't think CJCurrie will misuse admin powers, judging by the quality of his edits. However, he has very few edits to pages outside of the Main namespace, and, since his user page consists solely of his name, I have a hard time judging his views on Wikipedia. I certainly don't think that every admin needs to be a mean, lean, policy-writing machine like Angela, but I do think that admins should at least be familiar with resolving conflicts and have some sort of involvement in metadiscussions. --Slowking Man 03:19, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Ditto. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?
A. I have.
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. I am, and I do.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. I would be interested in watching for vandals and vandalism, and would be willing to assist in overseeing the "recent changes" list.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. Political parties of Canada. I've added several new parties to the list, and have written articles for many of them.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. I've not done extensive work in correcting vandalism or mediating disputes (as of yet). I have categorized numerous articles in the field of Canadian political history, particularly as regards politicians in the province of Manitoba.
6. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. I have not been involved in hostile exchanges with other users.

Zoney (22/0/0) ends 13:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zoney has been with us since early March 2004 and has greatly expanded our coverage of Ireland-related subjects and European topics. Zoney generally handles conflicts well, and has an amiable outlook towards others. I have no doubt the community can trust him. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I accept this nomination, I've gotten more heavily involved I feel in Wikipedia over the last few months, and I feel confident at this stage to take on greater responsibilities. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 15:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. David Remahl 13:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC). My encounters with Zoney have been constructive.
  3. Norm 14:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. -- orthogonal 15:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC). Definitely, a friendly fellow except that he won't tell me where he keeps his pot o' gold.
  5. Michael Snow 15:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Antandrus 16:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) I've been impressed with his contributions and common sense.
  7. Zoney is a great contributor and fun to work with. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. blankfaze | (беседа!) 16:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. func(talk) 16:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) I've only seen good edits by Zoney, (love the Irish breakfast, btw). :)
  10. Good user. Andre 19:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. Conti|✉ 19:29, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Tεxτurε 19:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. Arminius 19:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. Agree with Ludraman. --Lst27 21:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  15. squash 21:15, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC) Zoney also hangs around on #wikipedia on freenode. His or her contributions to Ireland articles and the other edits are great... would be nice sysop.
  16. — Kate Turner | Talk 21:20, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
  17. —No-One Jones (m) 21:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  18. [[User:Anárion|Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ]] 22:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  19. I know you... -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:15, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
  20. Acegikmo1 23:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  21. MerovingianFile:Atombomb.gifTalk 04:28, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Good contributor, will make good admin JFW | T@lk 04:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?
A. I have.
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. I will.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. Certainly responding to requests, I like order also, so I hope to get up to speed on article/history mergings. I'll be available for other chores also.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. Train station and railway platform perhaps, along with associated articles.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. As regards running/maintenance, I like to give opinions. I now frequent Village Pump a lot, and am happy to give my voice on any issues needing decisions.
6. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. Most serious conflict was probably when I just arrived, over Irish breakfast - I'd handle it better now I think. Nevertheless we worked out an agreement that involved expanding the article (the other party didn't want to keep the article, so that was something!). I'm not one for getting stressed, I'm a typically laid-back Irishman!

Gerald Farinas (17/0/2) ends 02:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gerald Farinas is one of the most dynamic Wikipedians I've had the good fortune to meet. He is dedicated, friendly, bold, and hard-working, and has made invaluable contributions to hundreds of Hawaii-related subjects, almost single-handedly. I know the community can trust Jerry to be a good sysop.

[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've been nominated a couple months ago but withdrew my nomination feeling that I wasn't quite ready and needed more experience interacting with other Wikipedians. I'm honored for this nomination and will accept this time around. --Gerald Farinas 03:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. This is my time to say, "He isn't an admin already?" Mike H 02:47, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Rhymeless 03:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. —No-One Jones (mail) 03:50, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. -- orthogonal 04:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) Anyone willing to withdraw his own nomination to get more experience I think demonstrates that he's more concerned with Wikipedia than his own ego. So I strongly support. So I really ought not to have mistakenly listed this under "oppose", should I have?
  6. MerovingianFile:Atombomb.gifTalk 06:21, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Lst27 15:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. Andre 16:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. Guanaco 21:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. ffirehorse 00:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. Young? Is he unusually young for a college student or something, blankfaze? The average college student probably falls near the middle of our age demographic. In any case, regardless of chronological age, Jerry has demonstrated plenty of maturity to qualify for adminship in my opinion. --Michael Snow 01:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  12. After seeing some of his incredible work on articles like Alan Keyes, how can I say no? -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 01:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. 172 10:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) Strong support. Within his first day or two on Wikipedia he contributed five articles. One was a short paragraph about Moanalua High School, and it got listed on VfD. Fortunately, he wasn't discouraged and shrugged it off, which tells me almost everything I need to know about him. Perhaps he shrugged it off because was too busy working on a very good article about Rogers Park, Chicago to worry about it. Since then, he has contributed mumble-hundred articles, and all the ones I've glanced at being just superb. Moanalua High School survived VfD by the way, and subsequently got polished into a little gem. Gerald Farinas knows how to write encyclopedia articles, and has a non-contentious personality.
  15. I'm not sure how I've failed to ever see Gerald's name before, given his large number of edits, but he seems like an excellent editor, and courteous and helpful in discussions. Definite support. —Stormie 01:42, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  16. • Benc • 02:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  17. Tεxτurε 19:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) - Can I change my vote to oppose due to my jealousy of your office view? Or should I support you and hope to leverage this into a job?

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Unsure about his knowledge experience with the Wikipedia community. Is certainly polite with others, but I am not sure if he has a complete grasp of all of the policies in place here. Plus, what would he do as a sysop? -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:55, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
    • Grunt, when you ask "what would he do as a sysop", I'm not sure what you mean. Could you expand on that, please? -- orthogonal 18:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I mean, essentially: How can the Wikipedia community benefit from making Gerald a sysop as opposed to his not being a sysop? -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:20, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
    • What do you do as a sysop? --MerovingianFile:Atombomb.gifTalk 23:05, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  2. If I'm not mistaken, isn't he a bit of a young chap? Seems to be a good contributor, but I would worry about inexperience, maturity, and the like, perhaps. Oops. Not that young after all. 8750 edits? Wow, impressive. But if Sir Grunt is reluctant to support, so then shall I be! blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:06, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    He's 21, if that matters. Mike H 01:24, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    Ah, fie, I feel afool. I must be thinking of someone else, or... something. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Perhaps you're thinking of me; I'll be 16 in November. --MerovingianFile:Atombomb.gifTalk 23:06, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    Nay, Mero, you are young, but responsible. Though I know not what you were thinking when you decided to put an animated gif in your signature! blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    :D --MerovingianFile:Atombomb.gifTalk 07:50, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
    Don't let my vote influence yours, please... -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:24, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Comments

~8750 edits since May 17. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:55, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

That number may be slightly misleading—he has a pattern of rapid consecutive edits to the same article, which probably is an indication of care and meticulous proofreading—but he has created a truly impressive number of articles in any case. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?
A. Yes, several times since being first nominated for adminiship a couple of months ago. I withdrew my nomination then so I could get a better grasp of Wikipedia rules, policies and the overall culture that Wikipedians maintain.
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. Yes, I work at a desk all day and when work is slow I usually end up on Wikipedia. I do have a considerable amount of time free to perform the necessary chores that come with the position.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. I would be free to do whatever is needed to be done in various areas as needed.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. I'm quite devoted to the Hawaii-based articles, especially the major historical articles: Republic of Hawaii and Territory of Hawaii. I also spent a lot of time categorizing the Hawaii-based articles — Category:Hawaii.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A.
6. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A.

Andrevan (16/1/0) ends 05:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andrevan has shown hirself to be an excellent Wikipedian. It is clear to me that Andrevan can be trusted with the privileges and responsibilities of adminship. Sie is hard-working and trustworthy and as an admin will undoubtedly be able to contribute much more to Wikipedia. Node 05:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, I accept the nomination. For what it's worth, I have 1325 edits up to this point. Andre 06:01, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
An update: I now have 1618 edits. At this rate, I should be able to hit 1800 in time for Blankfaze to vote for me! :) Andre 19:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I now have 1801 edits. Victory! Andre 01:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Node 05:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely. Longtime contributor, and a fellow video game aficionado to boot! --Slowking Man 06:13, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  3. MerovingianFile:Atombomb.gifTalk 06:50, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Norm 12:11, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. [[User:Anárion|Ана́рыён]] 13:30, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Mike H 15:20, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  7. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 15:21, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. Lst27 16:56, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. Zchangu 18:00, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. -- orthogonal 19:51, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. We can always use more grunt workers. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:04, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
  12. Guanaco 22:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. Beau99 22:51, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. ffirehorse 00:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  15. I oppose anyone who's so confrontational that they can start arguments over articles about invented, non-existent deities. Listing my vote in the support category is a valid surrealist technique. --Michael Snow 01:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  16. Tεxτurε 19:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Sie? I don't know what a sie is, and as such, I'm not sure a sie would make a good admin. Will support after 1,800 edits. blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    You are opposing someone because Node used a gender neutral pronown? Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 23:56, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Blankfaze, believe me, I'm a he, not a sie. Node just used gender neutral pronouns because he wasn't aware of my gender. If you want to oppose me because of my lower-than-your-standard edit count, do so, but please don't oppose me because my nominator referred to me in a gender-neutral manner. Andre 03:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I kid, everyone, I kid! blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • "Sie" is a neologistic gender-neutral third person singular pronoun, analogous to "he" or "she" but without specifying gender, but also without, like "it" implying the referent is non-human. -- orthogonal 23:58, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • It's also, uh, the German word for "she". Who came up with this nonsense? john k 02:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Through Wikipedia, I found out about Spivak pronouns, which I think I prefer. E, em, and eir sound much better to me than sie and hir, besides which, I like sounding slightly Cockney. func(talk) 00:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?
A. Yes, and I read it again just now to refresh my memory.
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. Yes, very interested, and I'm sure I'll have time to do them.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. RC patrol is mainly what I think I can help with... vandalism, speedy deletes, and other maintenance that shows up on RC. Of course, I will respond to requests and do VfD as well.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. I'm a big fan of No soap radio, which I wrote most of myself. However, it's hard to pick one contribution that was the most helpful.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. I try to add a lot of new, interesting, and appropriate material, but I've also done NPOVing and vandalism revertion.
6. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. Just one on Talk:Invisible Pink Unicorn, but that was hardly a conflict, and everyone was satisfied with the end result.

Arminius (12/0/4) ends 00:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arminius has shown himself to be very calm in helping to curb vandalism as well as improve existing articles by tweaking them for POV. In his 1,330 edits since he started here on June 4, he has proven himself to be a very prolific editor and writer, helping in (mostly) articles related to government, economy, and the United States unofficial "dynasties", although he edits in a wide variety of topics. He is well-versed and very trustworthy. I have the utmost faith in his ability to perform admin duties responsibly. Mike H 00:47, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

I accept this nomination and hope to live up to the kind words given by the nominator. Arminius 00:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Mike H 00:47, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Mike H's support is enough for me. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Antandrus 01:24, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) Another one I've been impressed with here; good admin material.
  4. David Remahl 01:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. ffirehorse 02:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    -- orthogonal 11:09, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Gzornenplatz 11:34, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Andre 19:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. Lst27 Of course! He's an excellent contributor.
  9. MerovingianFile:Atombomb.gifTalk 04:59, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  10. An exemplary example of the type of person that a good Wikipedia contributor and would be a good sysop. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:01, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
  11. [[User:Anárion| (Anárion)]] 22:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  12. Good person to have around - Tεxτurε 19:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Austin Hair 01:55, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  2. I am very impressed with Arminius. I've been impressed with his work since I first saw it. I have nothing but support for the work he has done. I do feel, however, that simply not enough time has passed to vote for him as an admin. This isn't a matter of getting more of a record, but of going through some of the ups and downs of Wiki-involvement that just come along with time. I hope for a re-nomination in 4-8 weeks and a chance to vote for. Geogre 13:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    To be fair (and I respect your vote), he started working at Wiki the same day I did, and I was just promoted. Mike H 15:19, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Geogre. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. -- orthogonal 17:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) Agree with Geogre; Arminius supports sysops unilaterally departing from policy.

Comments

Just some explanation for Mike H: Your case was unusual, for me, because of just how blinking active you were. Your edits were everywhere, and you were stepping in to be The Man for an area that Wikipedia needed someone. I have not one ill word for anything I have seen from Arminius, and he's getting much more active now (or more noticeable? and being noticeable is not a good thing by itself, since some folks get really noticed for the wrong things), and so I really want to vote for him soon. Indeed, I'll be happy to do the nomination. Just a little time, that's all, so that I can see, now that Arminius is going to face the buffeting winds, how he reacts to them. Geogre 15:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?
A. Yes
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. Yes
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. I regularly view recent changes looking for new articles that need maintenance and looking for vandalism to correct.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. I would have to say my best contribution is categorizing articles (which can be seen on my user page), although I hope to soon be able to say mediating conflicts.
6. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. Yes I have had a few, and I'm happy to say in every case an agreement was worked out which satisfied both parties.

Self nominations for adminship

Self-nominators, please review the qualifications above. Many editors feel that self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure," have an account name that is many months old and have many hundreds of edits. This is not to say that self-nominators are necessarily any less qualified than "sponsored" nominations; however, many editors use their knowledge of the nominator as a "jumping off" point for considering nominees, and it is human nature to be more skeptical of those asking for a position than those being proposed by others. If you self-nominate, a good solid background is therefore very important.

Lst27 (10/2/0) Ends 22:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It has been about three months since my last RfA, and I want to try again for adminship. I am not the kind of person that I was before that was obsessed with adminship. Now I welcome a lot of newcomers, revert a lot of vandalism, and if I become an administrator, I will delete nonsense pages, and block vandals.

I have made approximately 2150 edits; but the number might be inaccurate because some edits were to correct my own spelling mistakes that I made before.

Support

  1. I must agree that there has been a marked improvement in Lst's behaviour. I support. — David Remahl 22:12, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. ‘"This should be no big deal," as Jimbo has said.’ (per Wikipedia:Administrators). Recent edits would appear to be good admin material. [[User:Anárion|Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ]] 22:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. I'd have nominated him myself; he's a good editor and committed to the project, so he ought to be an admin by now. Everyking 22:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. He expressed interest to me in being nominated last week, but I was so busy that I didn't respond to his email or recommend him. I would have, however. I support. Mike H 22:18, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Andre 22:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Jwrosenzweig 22:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) Lst has done exactly what we asked....honestly, I'm sorry I didn't nominate Lst27 myself. Even if Lst is Alex, he's behaved the way we said Alex needed to, and I see no evidence that any of Alex's accounts are still around that would make Lst a sockpuppet if Lst is Alex (and I suspect Lst isn't).
    How did you say he needs to behave? Did you tell him he should create a new identity, deny being Alex, and try not to get caught? I thought he was told to come clean, say he's sorry, and go on editing without request adminship all the time. Gzornenplatz 00:10, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
    At this point, I think we'd all like to forget the Alex fiasco -- Alex included. I don't think this is Alex. But if Alex is back, under any name, it's not vital to me that he tie himself to his old name -- only that he behave like a good Wikicitizen. That's all I ever asked of him. And again, I don't think this is Alex. Jwrosenzweig 00:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. -- orthogonal 23:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) i find JwRosenweig's argument compelling (and similar to mine re: Anarion, but I will not ask for royalties)
    • You released the argument under the GFDL -- I figured it was fair use. ;-) Jwrosenzweig 23:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. VV 00:05, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) I don't know the whole matter, but even if this is AlexPlank, is this anything more than a power game at this point? No other notable issues with this user have been raised.
    I don't know what's a "notable issue" for you, but that someone's whole purpose seems to be getting adminship and is willing to lie to everyone to get it seems notable to me. Gzornenplatz 00:10, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Calm down Gzornenplatz. Please remeber, there has been no community ruling stating that Lst27 has lied. Theres is only speculation at this point and I think your comming precariously close to violating No personal attacks. -JCarriker 00:20, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
    My comment was made on the assumption that he's Alex, in which case he clearly lied by saying he is not - and VeryVerily said that there was no issue for him even if it is Alex. If the issue is just whether it's in fact Alex, I'm sure I could assemble good enough evidence - but here people seem to say they wouldn't oppose even if it is Alex, which I think is a dangerous lowering of standards, especially considering that once someone is made sysop they can not be voted out again. Gzornenplatz 00:31, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  9. I agree with Chmod007. --MerovingianFile:Atombomb.gifTalk 04:30, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Snowspinner 04:35, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Last self-nomination failed 3-11, and not because he didn't have enough edits or anything like that. I don't see anything substantial having changed in this case. And "I am not the kind of person that I was before that was obsessed with adminship" is a ridiculous comment to make in a request for adminship. Also this seems to be an implicit admission that he was indeed Alex Plank (the person who obsessively tried getting adminship), which he categorically denied in his last nomination under the name Lst27. So if he lied like that less than three months ago, he is not ready for adminship now. Gzornenplatz 22:25, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
    People do change... Andre 22:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    But he hasn't. He needs to come clean about his previous identities, apologize for the lies, and then wait a substantial time before he can be considered (otherwise he would just make a fake apology to get adminship). Gzornenplatz 22:36, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
    What do you mean? --Lst27 22:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Believe me. I have shown more than enough evidence that I am not the same person as User:AlexPlank. I am Nan from Guilderland Center, New York, not Alex Plank from somewhere in Virginia.
    • User:Perl claims to be Alex Plank. Perl is an adminstrator at the Maori WP, and they must have felt the user could be trusted. In light of this, the question of Is Lst27 Alex Plank? seems quite moot. Why would Perl admit to being Alex Plank, only to come back as Lst27. That wouldn't make any sense. -JCarriker 22:58, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
    The Maori WP is a nonentity, he just asked a developer and was made admin there, without even speaking Maori, and consequently never doing anything useful there. It was apparently a clever trick to get adminship on Meta, which at that time was given to anyone who's an admin on any wiki. And Perl only admitted being Alex Plank after it was proven beyond reasonable doubt - and since he couldn't get adminship with that identity, he invented a new one, as he did so often before. What doesn't make sense there? Gzornenplatz 23:16, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
    What does that have to do with my nomination? I am not the same person as AlexPlank. -- User:Lst27
    Just one month ago Lst27 stated on his user page: "I really, really, really wanted to become an administrator of this site. I sought adminship twice, and both times it failed. I am losing interest in this project, and will go away for a while and come back later, when there is a better chance for adminship." Is someone whose whole pursuit here seems to be getting adminship a suitable candidate for it? Gzornenplatz 23:52, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I don't trust a person who, in the recent past, wrote I really, really, really wanted to become an administrator of this site and is seeking adminship again now. If User:Lst27 doesn't really, really, really want to become an admin, let him/her wait for someone else's nomination. Really, really, really wanting adminship is evidence of weak judgement, and User:Lst27's other contributions don't give me any more confidence. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    When I started using Wikipedia, I really really really wanted to be an admin, and now I am. Do you think I have bad judgment? --MerovingianFile:Atombomb.gifTalk 09:15, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
    The I am gone for now, but might come back later bit [1] doesn't inspire confidence. If a person gets bent out of shape and leaves in a huff, they're not admin material. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

If people would refrain from commenting in-line with the votes, both the vote and the discussion will be a lot easier to follow. Some brave sole may want to refactor the above comments, but I won't. — David Remahl 00:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

Bureaucrats are simply users with the ability to make other people admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats.

Please add new requests at the top of this section (and again, please update the headers when voting)

Other requests
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=5898797"