Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sam Spade (talk | contribs) at 17:50, 14 June 2004 (→‎[[User:AndyL]]; (5/1/0) ends 20:00 21 June 2004 (UTC)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:RFA does not stand for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.

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.


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, you should probably 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:AndyL; (5/1/0) ends 20:00 21 June 2004 (UTC)

Great contributor - untold thousands of edits either under this name or at previous name Andylehrer since March 10. He was nominated a couple of times a month or two ago, and there seems to have been a general sense that more time was needed. But many people seem to become admins after three months or so, and he's made tons and tons of edits. john k 21:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


  1. john k 21:53, 13 Jun 2004 UTC)
  2. Support strongly. GrazingshipIV 23:04, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
  3. —No-One Jones 23:50, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. 172 02:04, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. Danny 02:07, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. Snowspinner 16:50, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)


  1. Impolite POV warrior. Generally good editor, but thats not what this job entails. Seems to have no grasp of Wikiquette nor wikipedia:civility. Sam [Spade] 00:49, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)



  • I'm inclined to support, given my limited contact with Andy. Sam (or others), if you believe he's been uncivil or impolite, please offer a link or two? The only times I've seen Andy even get upset are in conversations with WHEELER, and while of course it is always better to remain calm, anyone here who's worked with WHEELER knows that frustration is often a product of that interaction. I intend to support in a couple of days, but will wait to see what counter-evidence there may be -- thanks. Jwrosenzweig 16:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I was refering mainly to the regularly acidic dialogue on Talk:Nazism and socialism, particularly in the archives. He utilized ad hominem arguments regularly, and pressed a "socialism has never truely existed (except maybe in cuba...)" POV. Sam [Spade] 17:50, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Oberiko; (2/0/0) ends 23:00 20 June 2004 (UTC)

A great contributor, has made about 2500 edits, his recent work categorizing World War II is admirable. I feel he needs to be rewarded for all the hard work and dedication.GeneralPatton 23:08, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Patton, I accept your nomination. Oberiko 10:43, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


  1. GeneralPatton 14:55, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. Oberiko has also made good contributions to articles about strategy games and works of science fiction. Acegikmo1 19:30, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 16:31, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)




  • I'm not sure adminship should be considered a "reward". Acegikmo1 19:30, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • His edits look good. How's his dealing with editing conflict? - David Gerard 19:54, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've only dealt with a few admittedly. When a conflict does come up I'll ask the other party to talk it over on the discussion page in question. So far I haven't had anything go beyond that as an agreement has, so far, always been reached. Oberiko 21:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It doesn't sound like Oberiko's work is in topics that are particularly controversial. ;-) There's certainly nothing wrong with that. Isomorphic 00:22, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Diberri; (11/0/0) ends 15:45 15 June 2004 (UTC)

Dave Iberri has been doing a phenomenal amount of maintenance and quality improvement of articles pertaining to medicine and physiology. He is scrupulously adherent to policy and helpful whenever called on. He is the stuff administratorship is made out of. JFW | [email protected] 15:55, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • 1500 edits, here since January, in case anybody wanted to know
Thank you for the nomination. I humbly accept. --Diberri | Talk 22:14, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)


  1. JFW | [email protected] 15:55, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. --"DICK" CHENEY 17:35, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. olderwiser 18:06, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. GeneralPatton 20:11, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. Nunh-huh 20:35, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. I thought he already was one. It must be in his blood.Alteripse 02:10, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. Fuelbottle | Talk 16:25, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. Cecropia | Talk 16:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. Michael Snow 16:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  10. Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:13, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC) Support regardless of evil O'Reilly philia :=)
  11. Merovingian[email protected] 19:05, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)




  • I'm supporting, even though I'm skeptical of anyone who admires Bill O'Reilly. At least it seems he has a better grasp of "Fair and Balanced" than O'Reilly and hasn't adopted O'Reilly's tactics for squelching dissenting opinions. olderwiser 18:06, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't we judge Dave by his work, rather than by his stated affiliations and views? JFW | [email protected] 13:55, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, um, that's what I thought I was doing. I am supporting him despite my skepticism. olderwiser
    • So why make the point? JFW | [email protected] 09:28, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Because O'Reilly is a highly biased, POV-monger, disingenuously advertising his show as a "no-spin zone". I am extremely skeptical of anyone who claims O'Reilly as a role model. Despite my dislike of O'Reilly, I think Diberri has not shown any O'Reilly-like tendencies in editing Wikipedia. Are you suggesting that I can't use the comments section to make comments? olderwiser 15:05, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • For the record, I never claimed that ol' Billy was my role model or that I ever admired him (Bkonrad's words). Indeed, on my user page I merely point out that many of our social/political views are in alignment. If some have misinterpreted that as admiration, then hopefully I've clarified my intent. To be honest, I'd hoped these comments would be more about me as a Wikipedia editor and less as a political commentator ;-) That said, this comments section has made for a delightful read :-) --Diberri | Talk 15:41, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
      • Diberri, I'm sorry for a lack of precision in paraphrasing what I recalled seeing on your user page. I did not in any way intend the comment to portray you in a negative light. I really was just trying to make a snarky comment about O'Reilly while pointing out that your edits are of better quality than O'Reilly. I hoped that people might find it amusing--sorry if anyone misunderstood. olderwiser 16:12, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm supporting, even though I am sure O'Reilly would hate my pro-choice secularism. There needs to be diversity in the pool of admins. --"DICK" CHENEY 19:51, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:David Gerard; (37/0/0) ends 10.08 15 June 2004 (UTC)

A solid contributor ~ 4000 edits since arriving in January. Always calm when the editing gets hot, he would make a good admin. theresa knott 10:11, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I accept - David Gerard 10:49, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)


  1. theresa knott 10:11, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. Excellent contributor, and brings a lot of experience from usenet in dealing with controversial issues. - MykReeve 10:41, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:49, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support, David's a man you can rely on to do a good job as an admin. —Stormie 10:51, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. —Morven 11:01, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. JFW | [email protected] 11:09, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. Dysprosia 11:46, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. --"DICK" CHENEY 13:54, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. Yes, no question. →Raul654 14:09, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Snowspinner 15:20, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Cecropia | Talk 16:04, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  12. I was going to wait until the end of the month to nominate him, but what the heck. —No-One Jones 03:37, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)  :-D - David Gerard 23:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  13. Nunh-huh 03:41, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  14. Definitely. Rhymeless 04:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  15. Meelar 05:01, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  16. I know it's becoming a cliche to say this here now but I thought he already was one. Support. Angela. 06:45, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  17. DG is ok. -- Viajero 11:05, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  18. Support. Known him online since before I knew of Wikipedia. Smerdis of Tlön 11:50, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  19. I also thought he already was one.... Level-headed, clear, friendly, and helpful -- will make an excellent sysop. -- BCorr|Брайен 11:54, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  20. olderwiser 14:30, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  21. Support. Met him at the London WikiMeet and he seems a nice enough chap ;-) --VampWillow 14:34, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  22. -- ALargeElk | Talk 14:40, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  23. Tεxτurε 15:39, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  24. An excellent choice who perceives with real clarity the issues at this site. Jwrosenzweig 17:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  25. Support. Morwen 18:07, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  26. Warofdreams 18:24, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  27. Patiently not taking crap from MNH wins him my vote. Alteripse 02:10, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  28. Michael Snow 16:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  29. Merovingian[email protected] 05:48, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  30. Showed good judgement and restraint when dealing with MNH. Isomorphic 15:42, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  31. Haha, I thought he already was one. blankfaze | •­• 02:35, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  32. Arwel 10:32, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  33. --GeneralPatton 22:51, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  34. john k 20:45, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  35. Fuzheado | Talk 02:05, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  36. 172 02:06, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  37. Danny 02:08, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)




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.

User:Itai; (14/8/0/1), ends 07:47, 14 June 2004 (UTC)

I've been here for some time - less than some, more than others - and think that becoming an admin is a proper step towards illumination. If voted an admin, I promise to do very little harm, and to revert for fun no more than half the number of articles I revert due to vandalism. -- Itai 07:47, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


  1. Support. Itai has made over 2200 edits since the start of December and seems to have a good understanding of Wikipedia. Angela. 10:51, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support - A brief glance through the user's history shows nothing but good edits. Burgundavia 10:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. Merovingian[email protected] 23:52, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  4. JFW | [email protected] 14:53, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Anthony, where's your sense of humour?
    • I understood it was most likely a joke (and still don't think it's a particularly funny one). But at the same time, this was my first introduction to this person, so I had no real basis to judge such things. anthony (see warning) 12:12, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. ugen64 01:40, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC) Wow... just wow... y'all really do have no sense of humor...
  6. Personally, I very rarely revert things for outright vandalism (most of the vandalism I see is of the speedy delete variety), so Itai's formula wouldn't leave me much room for "recreational reverting". And in glancing through Itai's contributions, I couldn't find much in the way of reverts, period, so I don't consider this a concern. Plus, a sense of humor is often closely related to a sense of perspective, something I think is valuable for an admin to have. --Michael Snow 16:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. Anárion 17:07, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. Rhymeless 03:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. Avala 20:31, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  10. Guanaco 18:39, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  11. Seems sincere and well-established at Wikipedia. cprompt 04:20, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Arwel 10:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  13. Support, on the condition that he harms no carrots. Κσυπ Cyp   12:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  14. Danny 02:09, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


  1. I presume it's a joke, but I'd like Itai to confirm that before I support. Nat Krause 14:10, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose for now on the grounds given above - and I'd also like to know what the "illumination" that Itai feels this is a step towards is.-- ALargeElk | Talk 14:40, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    I'm still opposing, sorry. I would second all of Hceney's comments below. Self-restraint and community skills - if not here, then where?-- ALargeElk | Talk 15:00, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose until user clarifies cryptic message. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:54, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Tεxτurε 15:35, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. Maximus Rex 17:15, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. BCorr|Брайен 23:03, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) The request itself and Itai's responses to questions here on on hir talk page don't inspire me with confidence. A little jocularity is fine, but overall I'm concerned about what sort of dialogues and conversations Itai would have with other users or admins around contentious issues.
  7. Cribcage 00:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. blankfaze | •­• 02:40, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Now, I have a sense of humour, but I don't really think it's appropriate here, especially if you don't make it absolutely clear that you're kidding. Itai seems to take this as a joke, and that makes me think he might be inclined to abuse his power.


  1. anthony (see warning) I previously had opposed. Based on your response, I have no idea how to vote. I'd probably support in a month, if this nomination fails.


Fine. I was of a mind that I probably shouldn't reply - I honestly don't think the people whose adminship is voted should reply, lest the vote deteriorates into a free-for-all - but, as always. I can't help myself. All those who voted against me on grounds of my statement of intentions above: it is my humble opinion that whatever introductory paragraph I provide, be it a declaration of my undying love of carrots or a solemn oath to wear nothing but skirts for the rest of my days, is of no importance at all. I would much rather be judged according to [1]. Then again, you may feel differently, and are entirely to your own opinion.

As for "DICK" CHENEY, you are, of course, entirely right. In refusing to answer anthony's question I was not displaying my community skills at their finest. However, that is merely due to my resentment of the growing puritan streak among Wikipedians - the notion, among other things, that everything (even outside the encyclopedia articles) must comply to form, be sensible and not be entirely meaningless. Another aspect of this trend is the ever-piling bureaucracy, which will neatly devour us all, in triplicate.

I realize the above my cause all 5 supporters to remove their votes, but this would appear to be unavoidable, if only due to the very little self restraint. -- Itai 05:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your comments have raised even more doubts. If you are unwilling to display your community skills at their finest when asking for a consensus to fulfill your request for more power, when will we see your community skills? Despite my own opinions about Anthony, he deserved an answer to a very reasonable question for a user that may soon have the power to block, delete, and automatically revert.
I assure you, I am extremely troubled by the current formal-elitist country club trend in Wikipedia where only the 2-3% most profilific contributors are granted the esteemed priviledge and noble title of adminship. Being an excellent contributor does not necessairly mean you will be a good admin. Until you are at least somewhat serious about your desire to serve Wikipedia as an admin, I will withhold my support. --"DICK" CHENEY 17:09, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

Please add new requests at the top of this section

Ilyanep (1/0)

Hi, I've been a sysop here for about 6 months (If I remember correctly) and would like to request becoming a bereaucrat. I doubt if I will be promoting too many people (seeing as nobody here except me gets any sleep), but I'd like to help out in the case where help is needed. I typically avoid arguments and edit wars, and I try to occasionally write new articles from scratch...but that's beside the point, I think. Ilyanep 22:35, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


  1. From one sysop to another. --Merovingian[email protected] 16:28, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)



Other requests

Possible misuses of administrator powers