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 Fantasy (talk | contribs) at 10:10, 15 August 2003 (We are police, not judges.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Here you can make a request for adminship. See Wikipedia:Administrators for what this entails and for a list of current admins.

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.

If you want to become an administrator then add your name to the list below. Any user 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.

If there is general agreement that someone who requests adminship should be given it, then a developer will make it so.

Requests for adminship

  • I hereby volunteer for light housekeeping duties. I dedicate this self-nomination to Marshallharsh and Gar, who have been a big inspiration. Cyan 02:46, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Support: Seen him copyediting and updating materials around, and he seems to be the "light housekeeper" type. --Menchi 04:50, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded. Angela 21:52, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • I would like to ask the Wikipeida community if it would consider making me an admin. I have been a reader of this resource for almost exactly a year now, and an active contributor for eight and a half months. My principle reason for wishing to apply is the chance to hopefully cool potentially harmful flame wars and rollback the actions of users on vandalism sprees. Many of my chances to Wikipedia have been style alterations, but I have also helped start some articles and am glad to help. I can invest much time in the project currently, as I am on university vacation and generally will be able to edit between the hours of 15:00 and 03:00 UTC. I shall not be offended if my request is turned down and will, of course, continue to contribute regardless. Thanks for your consideration. Tompagenet 12:40, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Neutral stat: 150 edits in 9 months (since Dec 2002). --Menchi 23:24, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)
      • That is kinda light for 9 mos.-戴&#30505sv 06:58, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • Hm. I need to see a more extensive track record of edits before I would support your application. --mav 08:09, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I support Tom; he's been here for nine months, and as far as I can tell, hasn't been disruptive once. Sure, his number of edits may be on the light side, but have you forgotten about User:ilyanep who was made a sysop after thirty or so edits to the sandbox? -- Notheruser 19:41, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Yes, and Ilyanep disappeared soon after. I support Tom's request as well. Just a few days before Zippy became an admin (see below), although he has made even fewer edits than Tom. So it wouldn't be fair to exclude Tom just because of the number of his edits. -- Cordyph 20:58, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with the above. Unless there are explicit objections, I'll make Tom a sysop.--—Eloquence 22:08, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)
  • I would like adminship for Wikiquote please. - Fonzy
    • Support. --Menchi 22:09, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • Second. --Angela
    • Agreed. -- The Anome 22:22, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • He does have a disturbing tendency for cross-wiki self-promotion [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. I think he should stop trying to get his name into as many articles as possible. As is, I'll remain neutral on the request.—Eloquence 03:44, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)

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 inform them about their listing on this page, and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.

  • I nominate Graculus. Although a very recent contributor, he is very active, making up to 50 edits a day. He's already one of the site's best history contributors. In addition, he has been thoroughly vetted, having survived an edit war involving Adam/Bridget/Lir/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber/Ril/Pizza Puzzle. He has also been unable to edit a protected page. His capability boundlessly exceeds the requirements. He has already needed sysop powers. And his ability to get around the Wiki has already been proven. 172 08:28, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded. Good choice - not the type of person to abuse sysop power (to the contrary - he'll be a check on other Admin's who may slip into the gray area once in a while). --mav 08:37, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Thirded, he edited New Imperialism, and survived. Ксйп Cyp 09:13, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It wasn't a matter of surviving New Imperialism, but surviving a page haunted by Lir. Notice that all tension subsided immediately when Lir/Pizza Puzzle agreed to leave and cultivate a new persona. 172 09:46, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Adam Bishop -- A friendly writer responsive to questions. Helps improving articles, if he could, when others requested assistance. Has done 1619 edits in less than 2 months (June 9 - August 7). --Menchi 01:20, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • I'll second that. - Hephaestos 01:21, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I can vouch that his contributions to a wide variety of Canadiana articles have been excellent. - SimonP 19:30, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree - Adam Bishop is an obvious choice. --mav 22:07, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Ooh, I didn't know I was listed here...I have to reply here, right? Adam Bishop 03:56, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Schneelocke for sysop! Simply put, Schneelocke is an uncontentious and prolific contributor who will make an excellent admin. He helped clean up after User:Wakka who was trying to "prove a point" by vandalizing articles (*shakes head*) and will benefit from being able to revert and delete pages. Wikipedia needs more contributors who are able to clean up after vandals and delete junk pages, especially in light of Wikipedia's press coverage. This is a good start. -- Notheruser 21:58, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Support. --Menchi 22:02, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • Absolutely.—Eloquence
    • Yep. I agree. Schneelocke is an excellant contributor who has helped me greatly with the periodic table. 100% support from me. --mav 22:07, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree too. Good choice for admin. Angela
    • Thanks for the nomination, Notheruser. I feel very honoured, and accept the nomination. ^_^ -- Schnee 14:24, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Requests for de-adminship

172: I won't support banning, but I'll certainly support a removal of sysop powers. I was disappointed when Eloquence reversed his decision -- I don't think the kind of blatant, repeated abuse of powers 172 has demonstrated should be tolerated. Sysophood is for trusted, respected users. -- Tim Starling 03:04, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

I second the request for his sysop powers to be permanently removed. This disrespect of other users is not tolerable of sysop's, and this is not the type of impression we should be giving to new users. 172 needs to take his witch hunts elsewhere. マイカル (MB) 03:36, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

(What users? Users who post crap like this: Pat Robertson has recently felt hardship, for he knows he is losing the war against gay rights and his small penis. Pat Robertson has even been known to give $150,000 to a scam artist who told him he would sell him machines for $275 that would create perpetual motion, or endless power. Clearly not a scientist, Pat Robertson suffers from many diseases of the brain. He also has publically announced that he wishes that the 3 supreme court justices that are ill who voted for sodomy to be legalized to die. He is a sham and uses his position to accomplish vendettas of his own in the name of the christian populus. What a coward.") 172

Thirded. He is a good editor, and can work cordially with someone he respects, but he won't take constructive advice. I would hope he keeps editing the wikipedia, but not as a sysop. Losing sysop powers shouldn't be a big deal. Let him join the 1700 plus editors who also lack those powers. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 03:46, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Fourthed because he refuses to even try and work with those who disagree with him. He stated on my user-talk page that he would "never work co-operatively" with me after he didn't like the way I summarised something he wrote on my page. Angela 04:07, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You people keep budding into disputes and taking sides with little knowledge of what the disputes actually entail. The issue is banning a vandal, not me. Every edit by this user has been blatant vandalism. He has vandalized Catholicism with his illiterate POV rant; he defaced the Holocaust article; and he persistently vandalized the Pat Robertson article, wanting to put in the article that 'Pat Robertson has a small penis.' This user is just a troll looking to stir up trouble and provoke and manipulate people. And making me the issue rather than his vandalism means that he is accomplishing that. Shame on all of you for attacking me rather than his blatant vandalism. Shame on all of you for being easily manipulated by a troll. 172 03:57, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I'm not being manipulated by a troll. I'm influenced by your own actions, both now and in the past few months. Perhaps if you didn't let yourself be influenced by trolls, this would not have escalated so far. Angela 04:18, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I hate to say that I told you so. --mav 04:58, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I will not continue editing if my sysop status is revoked. I'm not going to be subject to the humiliation of being demoted. Why the hell should I care if Wikipedia loses a historian and gains yet another vandal like Michael. You people seem to have more respect for someone who comments on Pat Robertson's penis size anyway. 172 05:08, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is the precise point where you seem to be most clue-deficient. What we are all trying our best to do is to extend courtesy to all users. Even to you. If you do not appreciate that... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 05:51, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Please clarify:
172 seems to think he's been accuse of overprotective of WP of Michael-like blatant vandals (who obviously disagree with him, and many other Wikipedians, I'd assume), but Tim, MBecker, Cimo, and Angela don't seem to be talking about this (are they?) But rather, they speak of a behavioral and attitude flaw that cause those who disagree with him (in their argument, loyal Wikipedians, not vandals) cannot work on WP as easy as it could be.

So is it the vandal over-reaction or the attitude instability? Hostility toward vandals or toward loyal Wikipedian? --Menchi 06:33, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

I am quite surprised by what I am reading here. 172's edits that I have seen have always been good. If some people I trust, like mav, think the decision to demote 172 is appropriate, then I will accept it. Otherwise, I would like to keep the case open for a while. olivier 07:37, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Hmm. I haven't worked with 172 on any page, so I couldn't tell you what that is like. I think I wrote that many people who he respects get no trouble from him. To me it isn't his attitude, even though he has told me some quite unpalatable opinions about my actions. I dare say he hasn't loved all my views.
To put it bluntly, there is nothing wrong with 172. And hence he feels that no-one else should make any mistakes either. And if someone does make a mistake, well that is why he has these sysop-powers...
But that isn't how it should work. At least that is not my view. Take my rights away, if sysop-rights are meant as a way to shun the imperfect. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 07:45, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

I don't support the deadminship of 172. However, as a suggestion, I ask for a change in his attitude. The edit war we had over whether to include a NPOV dispute warning was quite ridiculous. He should try to work for consensus rather than doing blanket reversions when he is not happy with an edit. I ask that when there is a dispute that he leave the revert button alone until a consensus is reached on the talk page, especially when there is more than one person against his actions. Maybe this will keep him out of these edit wars. Let this page serve as his warning, but give him a chance to change for the better. Don't act now.

I'd hate to see 172 go. He's been a valuable contributor. It seems the actions of 172 (to merit deadminship) are being overshadowed by the proposed ban of Nostrum. 172 should not be deadmined simply for advocating the ban of another user, but for any reason, his overall and entire conduct. The issue of Nostrum is dominating this discussion, and has been the basis of 172's defense. Perhaps Nostrum truly deserves banning (as other users have supported). If that is so, we definately should not penalize 172 for instigating it. We ought to archive this discussion and come back after the issue with Nostrum has been resolved. --Jiang 08:02, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree with your first paragraph but I don't with the second; the issue here is not just about Nostrum, but a long history of edit war after edit war that 172 is in. An Admin should be a model Wikipedian and try to seek consensus. It just makes all Admins look bad when one is constantly in the middle of a fight. 172 has also used his autorevert power as a tool in edit wars; this is not good at all because the other waring parties do not have this ability. The edit waring has got to stop. --mav 08:11, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
That's right, Mav. We should seek consensus at the expense of accuracy, objectivity, standards of proper location and placement, proper development of historical context, proper organization, and good writing. I should just compromise and give in to users who feel that Mormons are Catholics, 6 million Jews didn't die in the Holocaust, and Pat Robertson's penis size is relevant. Where's your evidence, Mav? Sometimes illiterate POV rants have no places in articles and someone has to eliminate them. I hate dealing with these mindless edit wars, but sometimes it's the only way of saving a good history article. But oh well. It looks like I'm going to have to leave in disgrace. Why don't you all restore Nostrum’s POV rant in Catholicism to celebrate my forced exit?

172 08:26, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)


GAAAHH!! Understand this. No-one wants you to leave! Period.

This is not about you, it isn't about Nostrum, it isn't about Whatchacallem PP/Lir/blrrrrrr.

It is about what the actions of a sysop should be like. Not about how many hashmarks a sysop gets for foiling a vandal or a proto-vandal or whatever. Wikipedia can survive temporary crappy content just fine. It can easily accomodate a vandal masquerading as a useful member of the editing community. What it cannot tolerate is the creation of a reality or even a perception that sysops are here as gatekeepers. That priviledge should be reserved for the editorship as a whole, and subverting that even in the slightest degree is worse than 2000 articles stating that John Paul II buttfucks all the cardinals. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 09:29, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Just a thought:
Separation of power is very important in real live. Police does not have to judge, Judges don't have to execute.
We sysops, what are we. Police or Judges? I would say Police. We don't have to judge if something is right, We just have to look after the people that they behave. If there are problems, we have to stop them and say "please think again", but the "public" is the judge and only the public can take a decision. For this I would say "police should NEVER enforce a POV", even if you think, you are absolutely right. Let the public, the judges, decide. WE ARE EXECUTIVE and we have to do that what the public says, not what we think is right. Fantasy 10:10, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Recently created admins

(most recent first)

  • I would like to be granted permission to modify the front page on occasion, in particular the In the News and Recent deaths headers. I am a compulsive reader of the news and I frequently add Wikipedia articles about people or events in the news. I've only been an editor since January of 2003 but I have added several non-trivial new articles since then. Thanks. Chadloder 19:23, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded. We need more editors of the main page.—Eloquence 10:13, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • Thirded - Chadloder is a good Admin choice. Full support. --mav
    • Support: Nice biographies he wrote. --Menchi 08:15, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • I'll support too; he's done quite a few good things I've seen, and could probably do more with the added functionality. - Hephaestos 21:14, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Today marks one year since I discovered Wikipedia. So as no-one has bothered to nominate me I thought it a suitable occasion to nominate myself and request adminship. Mintguy 08:47, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I'll second Mintguy. He's been here longer than I have.  ;) - Hephaestos 08:50, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Support: Prolific. --Menchi 09:03, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded.—Eloquence 10:13, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • Thirded Theresa knott 12:26, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Fourthed Kosebamse 09:37, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Make it so! --mav 08:09, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Thank you to everyone. Mintguy 22:16, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • RickK. Jumps quickly on problems already. - Hephaestos 05:29 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Support: He's one quick Rick. --Menchi 05:42 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Support: For what it's worth, he has been helpful and polite to me. Dmsar 06:28 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Support: The force is strong with this one (just to get away from Star Trek quotes :) -- Jim Regan 07:33 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Hmmm well... the "force" is from Star Wars not Star Trek
        • Yeah... that's why I said get away from :) -- Jim Regan 08:00 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Support for all the reasons above jimfbleak 07:39 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Support from me too, Rick is one of the good guys. Tannin 09:30 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Wow. I don't know. What are the responsibilities of being a sysop? I probably would have liked to have been able to block that guy who was running amok the other day. RickK 01:10 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • As far as I know, there aren't really any responsibilities, just a list of obvious things not to do. כסיף Cyp 20:49 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • CTRL + F "I don't think" on this page to see several responses to your Q. --Menchi 17:23 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Acceptance: OK, I guess I can live with it. I can always just not do the admin thing if it gets to be too oppressive, right? Thank you, everybody. RickK 01:04 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
So, when do I notice anything different? RickK 07:29 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Once a developer has made you a sysop. You'll get a message on your talk page when this happens. Angela 08:50 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • 21 Jul 2003 Zippy: I've been contributing as a registered user since August 2002 (and as unregistered since June 2002), including both new entries and edits of existing ones. My net identity goes back for more than a decade, with a record of helpful participation on Slashdot and Usenet. I believe in a light touch in moderation except in the case of obvious vandalism (Goatse, bots). My main interest in adminship is in correcting and contributing to protected pages when I spot problems (typos, errors, unclear language).
    • Solid contributor who I don't recall has ever made a non-NPOV edit or has been the instigator of any edit war. I fully support Zippy as Admin. Do I hear a second so that we can make it so! --mav 19:43 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems to be in a weird time zone, so I don't recognize the name, but checked a few random edits, didn't find anything wrong. Is the sole contributor to at least a couple of short, properly wikified, articles. כסיף Cyp 11:59 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • 25 Jul 2003 Fantasy: Hi, in January 2003 I found out about Wikipedia and soon my wife told me to shut up with this Wiki-thing... Now we came to a compromise that I am telling her at maximum once a week my best wiki-experiences/ideas and it seems that she can handle it now ;-) Maybe my contributions are sometimes not totally NPOV, but I am working with passion on Wikipedia and I know that someone will tell me, If I am going too far, as I tell others if I see NPOVs. I would like to become admin because I worked as SQL Application Developer for many years and sometimes I would like to try something, but non-Admins don't have access (I know about the server-workload-issues, don't worry). And my second reason: it feels like applying to get on the starship Enterprise, out there, to seek new knowledge, to go, where no Encyclopedia has gone before... ;-)
  • CYD. The fact that he's only made ~1200 edits hides the fact that his contribution to the physics section has been huge. He's been quietly producing quality articles since December 2001. -- Tim Starling 06:47 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Great articles on computing and Harry Houdini. Seconded -- Jim Regan 08:30 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Support. Good contri-list. --Menchi 08:44 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Also seconded by MB on the mailing list here
      • Thanks, fellas. I accept the nomination. -- CYD
  • Antonio [whatever] Martin. Justification: See Vfd. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 07:44 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    (Just to keep everybody up to speed, Antonio whatever Martin posted an article that contained only the word "poop" on Votes for Deletion. It has since been removed, but it served as the impetus for my nomination, which I think may well have been the intent behind it. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 07:27 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Yep, Antonio should be an admin Martin is a good choice -- sannse 08:07 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, Antonio for sysop! He's an enthusiastic and hard-working Wikipedian, and I'm sure he wouldn't do anything evil. :) -- Oliver P. 04:01 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I fourth this nomination now I understand Cimon's comment. The first time I read it, I thought he meant Antonio had written the 'poop' article! Angela 16:41 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Yep - Antonio should be an Admin. About a third of the requests to have things listed on the Main Page come from Antonio so he might as well list them himself. :) --mav 06:24 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Thank you guys. Give me some time to think about it. Antonio Undecided Martin
      Im about to accept, because Id like to be not just a reporter, but an anchor as well..lol but I need to know what are the things an administrator has to do? -- Antonio always curious Martin
      • I don't think an administrator has to do anything. What you can do is delete pages (but not arbitrarily - only if they are junk or have been listed on VfD for a week.) You can also protect pages (unless you're involved in an edit war on them), query the database and edit protected pages. Angela 19:55 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Need-to-do? Can-do? Could-do? They're listed aquí, but people (including fellow admins) have diff expectations (hence the opening Qs). --Menchi 19:57 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Other nice things you can do : undelete pages (not arbitrarily, when they are listed on Wikipedia:votes for undeletion), unprotect pages (when it appears there is no reason why regular users could not edit them), unblock ips (when good users are unfortunately blocked). User:anthere
      • Well , ok I accept. I hope I do a good job1 Everyone, at the same time, a big Godspeed for me!! lol. And thank you very much all of you for nominating me. --Antonio your new Wiki-anchor Martim
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1293771"