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 Menchi (talk | contribs) at 22:39, 3 February 2004 (Support CatherineMunro). 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.

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 and created a variety of articles over that time without often getting into conflicts with other users.

If you want to nominate yourself to become an administrator, it is recommended that you wait until you have been a user for a reasonable period of time - long enough to show yourself to be trustworthy (on the order of months). 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.

After a 7 day period for comments, if there is general agreement that someone who requests adminship should be given it, then a developer will make it so and record that fact at Wikipedia:Recently created admins.

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.

Please place new nominations at the top


Mikkalai

Mikkalai has about 1969 edits in about 2½ months. Lots of sensible edits to mathematical articles, and other topics. Κσυπ Cyp   23:08, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Support Tuf-Kat 23:28, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I found this user to be able to discuss contentious issues in a reasonable manner, showing respect for sources, as well as differing opinions. I think they will use any authority granted them in a cautious, and judicious manner. Jack 21:54, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support cautiously. I think he's a fine user with a good track record, but he hasn't been here as long as I'd like. But, with the new de-sysop option, I'm more encouraged to support him. →Raul654 01:27, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • What do people think about Mikkalai separating out the story of the lost Jews of Carpathian Ruthenia into a separate ghetto article? How about suppression of information? Does Mikkalai show admin behavior? This may be an interesting contributor in his fields, but not an appropriate admin, IMO. Wetman 04:44, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I have reviewed the above objection, and I do not see it as substantive in regards to Mikkalai's request for adminship. This appears to be a very tender subject, w unfriendliness on the talk (which Mikkalai has not engaged in) and to be perfectly frank, I agree w what Mikkalai did, creating a seperate article for a contentious issue. The Carpathian Ruthenia needs alot of work, and he seems to be a part of making it better. Jack 07:31, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Metasquares

I've known Metasquares for a few years now, and can vouch that he'd be a great sysop. He's been on the Wikipedia since August 2003, and although he hasn't made thousands of contributions, his edits do show that he's not the type to get into edit wars, and he's done his share of community clean up (reverting garbage, etc.) --cprompt 19:16, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Uh....he hasn't even made 100 contributions. I'm sorry, Meta may well be a great person, but I'd have to see a lot more interest in and dedication to this project than 100 edits in half a year to make someone a sysop. Oppose. Jwrosenzweig 19:19, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I want to clarify...it's not that I suspect Metasquares of evil. All I'm saying is, until you've made a fair number of edits, you haven't really demonstrated how you handle cooperative work (and much more importantly, disputes). Many Wikipedians can be quite pleasant until an edit war occurs, and I am only saying that, in this case, I think waiting for another 100 edits or so is wise to see if, in that time, (a) Metasquares gets into any trouble and (b) how she/he handles that trouble. That's just my two cents, Jwrosenzweig 17:24, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • He's made 84 contributions. That's not enough for the same reason given by Jwrosenzweig. Oppose. →Raul654 19:21, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Reasons named above. - snoyes 19:39, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Needs more experience, more track record. ike9898 19:54, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, I would feel uncomfortable with a user with (apparently) such little experience having administrative privileges. Maybe try again in a few more months. silsor 07:35, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. "Quality, not quantity." The only question is whether Metasquares can be trusted. Cprompt vouches for him, and no one can say anything against his record. I doubt that after 83 good edits, his 84th will be evil! He's done the time, he's just not prolific. "Been around and trusted" is sufficient criteria: I say, give Metasquares sysop rights. --Uncle Ed 14:37, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Needs a bit more experience. Sarge Baldy 17:47, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. For the reasons Ed gave. People sometimes make admin priveliges sound like performing brain surgery, there's 150+ of us ambling around doing OK at it, it's really not that hard! -- Ams80 20:21, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not so much that it's hard (albeit there are a lot of policies about when using them is appropriate), as it is about trust. We trust admins not to abuse their powers. As such, having a trust-worthy (read - lengthy and tame) track record is essential to becoming an admin. →Raul654 20:50, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Kaihsu

Kaihsu has made nearly 3000 edits since April 2003, mostly on political/cultural topics relating to Europe and Taiwan. I've never seen him get involved in an edit war and believe he will make a good sysop. --Jiang 01:55, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks, Jiang. --Kaihsu Tai 22:30, 2004 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • Support. I've always seen good work from Kaihsu. Jwrosenzweig 19:20, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. From what I've seen an excellent contributor. - snoyes 19:39, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Yep. --Menchi (Talk)â 20:42, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Danny 00:47, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Angela. 08:51, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to be a consensus, so I'll jump on the bandwagon. --Uncle Ed 14:44, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Seglea

I would like to nominate Seglea for sysop, he has been with us since at least November 1 (#3515 contributions), and has done a great deal to add articles on animals and articles related to animals, and improved those we already have. He has a wonderful grasp of NPOV and encyclopaedic style. Don't recall him having ever got into a scrap anywhere.

  • Support. Tuf-Kat
  • Support. jengod 23:44, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Jiang
  • Support. Tannin 06:40, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great idea. Bmills 15:33, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Yep. I distinctively remember that somebody else nominated him and I had already supported him. Must be my memory betraying me. --Menchi (Talk)â 20:42, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Danny 00:47, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Angela.
  • Happy to be of service if no-one is opposed. Thank you! seglea 07:18, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - UtherSRG 20:06, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Roadrunner

User:Roadrunner has made about 5000 edits, most of good quality. His contributions list registers his first edit on Apr 2002. Though this may not be accurate due to the glitch, I pretty sure he's been here longer than I have. --Jiang 22:07, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • support. Greenmountainboy 17:38, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support, copious contributor. (Maybe nominations should be switched to the top of this page so they'd be more noticeable.) - Hephaestos 04:13, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • nth. Can't believe a longtime contributor still haven't been promoted to sysop.大将军, 都督中外诸军事 (talk) 00:02, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tuf-Kat
  • Support. I have seen him insert a quality NPOV compromise into a troubled POV debate/altercation regarding a passage, and thereby resolve the circumstance. He appears to have just the sort of judicial approach that would dignify adminship with his inclusion. Jack 04:04, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's about time, and I hope he accepts. --Uncle Ed 16:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Infrogmation 05:17, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Hemanshu 06:27, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tannin 22:11, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Kind of assumed he already was a sysop. Sarge Baldy 08:50, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Kaihsu Tai 22:28, 2004 Jan 31 (UTC)
  • We'll give this another week, and if he doesn't respond by then, withdraw this. --Jiang 23:37, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it is safe to assume that Roadrunner hasn't actually seen this nomination yet, and possibly doesn't know he has a talk page. In his about 5000 contributions, I count 3 edits to User talk pages (and more than 3 to User pages). Lots of edits to regular article Talk pages. Κσυπ Cyp   00:43, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is safe to assume that. More likely he knows he has them and is choosing to ignore user: and wikipedia: pages and get on with improving articles instead? Though giving admin rights won't do any harm, it may also be pointless! Why thrust it upon him when he appears to be getting on dandily without? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:35, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (I thought he was) Danny 00:47, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Angela. 08:51, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I thought that Roadrunner was an admin a year ago!!!!! It's about time! He is one of Wiki's best contributors. 172 20:02, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Requests for adminship

Please add new requests to the top

Anthony DiPierro

I want to be an admin so I can view deleted articles.

  • The rationale seems a little thin, and my overall impression of this user is not positive--Anthony seems unwilling to work with others and build community. Unless there is overwhelming support (and a track record I haven't seen), I oppose. Jwrosenzweig 22:31, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too much conflict. (Can there be a lesser category to view deleted articles?) - Texture 22:36, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


User:Hemanshu

I've been around since November 2003 and have made nearly 2000 edits. I am not as much of a Recent Changes junkie as I am a Random Page junkie. Most of my edits are formatting edits. I think I can be a substantial contributor to India-related topics but am not able to match my expectations of myself. I beleive I've gotten better with experience and hope to improve further. --Hemanshu 18:01, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

User:CatherineMunro

I've been around since February of 2003; I tend to stick close to a few topics I like, but I do a lot of weeding and disambiguating all over the place. I was invited for adminship by Mav in May, and accepted via the mailing list, but was never added; apparently someone else's life was as chaotic as mine was over the summer! I've been happily doing my own little gardening with the tools I've got, but I'll take more tools if you've got 'em. Thanks -- Catherine 19:35, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Support -- a quick view of her contributions convinced me she is definitely qualified. One note--if she was accepted via the mailing list in May, should we even need this vote? Jwrosenzweig 19:44, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- I don't think there's any need to vote here, since she was accepted in May Tuf-Kat 19:58, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- If mav says yes, I say yes (he has my proxy). --Uncle Ed 20:10, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Angela. 20:20, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, she was nominated by me [1], seconded by Ams80 [2] and invited by mav [3]. Then it seems she was missed! So, no we don't really need another vote. (but Support of course) -- sannse 20:32, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Thought she already was one. Does a great job. - Hephaestos 20:38, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Same as Hephaestos I'm surprised that you aren't one already. You deserve it just for the work we did on Atlas Shrugged... Ams80 20:45, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Atlas Shrugged... *shudder*. Support Catherine →Raul654 23:09, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Sarge Baldy 23:03, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support strongly. -User:Hephaestos
  • Support. She will be good. What kind of irony is it that she was adminified over over a year ago but is still not a admin? :-) O the Bureaucracy of Wikipedia! --Menchi (Talk)â 22:39, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Misterrick

I would like have the opportunity to serve the Wikipedia community on a higher level. I have made many contributions and have proved myself to be reliable, I am on and monitor the Wikipedia site on a regular basis and I get along with other Wikipedia users including many of the admins. In my contributions you will see that I have kept my composure when pages that had contributed to were vandalized, Either I or another Wiki user reverted the page back to it's original text without any outbursts or anger on my part. I have also created a few new Wikipedia article which I thought would be in the interest of the Wiki community. I would also keep my Internet Relay Chat program open and set to the #wikipedia channel on the freenode.net server in the event that a user (including admins and newbies) need to contact me posthaste. Misterrick, 01 February 2004, 06:45 (UTC).

  • 200 edits. Oppose. --Wik 06:50, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Forgive this poor, old soul for a faulty memory, but has Misterrick been up for adminship before? →Raul654 06:55, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, too few edits. - snoyes 07:02, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, too little experience. silsor 07:39, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
200 edits? are you sure about that it seem like I've done a lot more edits then that and in response to posts that I have too little experience, I have to say that I know almost ever in and out on how to work the Wikipedia editing tools and I've made significant contributions to this site and I don't understand why you feel that I am too inexperienced and unlike previous attempts I will not withdraw my application because I feel strongly that I can be an asset to the Wikipedia website as an Administrator. Misterrick 01 February 2004, 09:23 (UTC)
As I write this, you've made exactly 205 edits. →Raul654 09:26, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Two hundred edits is enough for us to form an idea of what sort of contributor you are. In particular, how you handle the current conflict -- over whether you are granted sysop rights -- will rapidly clarify the sort of admin you will be in the future. I'm going to press the "promote" button, if I can find my electronic remote (wait, it's here in my pocket -- no, that's for my car... I'll be back). --Uncle Ed 14:53, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What's the rush? Just build up a track record of good contributions and decent conduct. It won't take too long. ike9898 16:12, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Meelar

Hi, I've been contributing since November of 2003, and in that time I've made 877 edits, mostly to political topics. Despite this, I've only been involved in one edit war, during which I tried (and eventually succeeded) in reaching consensus on George W. Bush (roughly Jan 4-7--see Talk:George W. Bush). I've been a conscientious contributor; my current project is writing articles for each committee of the U.S. House of Representatives (and yes, this is a blatant plug). I'd like sysop powers because, when I'm just sick of committees, I do weeding, and it would make me more productive in doing so. Thank you very much. Meelar 06:31, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Your edit history looks good. I wouldn't call the scuffle over George W. Bush an edit war. silsor 06:46, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Friendly, active on cleanup and does lots of editing, this behaviour should always be encouraged.  ;) Fabiform 06:49, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fixes numerous broken or borderline things rather than arguing about them. Seems cooperative and without an agenda. And we need more admins with names sillier than mine. -- Finlay McWalter 13:41, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Cyan 14:01, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've seen you around in a number of places, and I think you do a commendable job. (David Cannon Davidcannon 20:39, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC))
  • Support. jengod 01:44, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Jiang 01:47, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Danny 15:18, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Thought Meelar already was an admin. --Uncle Ed 16:08, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Rdash 22:22, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sarge Baldy

Hi! I've been around since mid-September 2003 and have 778 (assuming I counted correctly) edits to my name. True, the vast majority of these are minor fixes but in the long run minor fixes are nearly as important as major additions if you're trying to make a professional-looking encyclopedia. If you look through my contributions you'll see I messed up a few times when I was new (uploading images without citing a source, and/or was too trusting something was in the public domain) but I know what's going on now. Oh yeah, and being something of a spelling and grammar nazi I'm a member of the Wikipedia Typo Team. I've started a few articles too (all of which are listed in my talk page), although these aren't anything terribly special. So yeah, support me or not, I'm going to be around for a while :) Sarge Baldy 06:54, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Credentials and edit history look great. silsor 07:40, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I admit I havn't seen you around much, but this is a big place. Anyways I looked at your cotributions and I found nothing but good, fixing those little mistakes people like me make from time to time, adding content and writing articles as well. Jack 11:32, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support 100%. I've interacted with him and the experience was totally painless. →Raul654 18:05, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - Hephaestos 06:30, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

ike9898

I've been contributing for 7 months and I have about 500 edits. I have a good command of American English and I'm interested in a variety of subjects.


I really love the 'pedia and I want to contibute more by helping to squash vandalism. I would be conservative in my use of admin powers. My number of edits isn't huge, partly because half the time when I'm on the 'pedia I just read and read. I feel that my cruising around the database would be helpful in spotting nefarious user activity and stopping it quickly. I hope you will support my request for adminship. ike9898 15:20, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) I'd also like to be able to run selective database queries.

  • While not a high number of edits, it's not out-of-the-question low either. He has been here 7 months, which is a lot longer than most people who apply. His contribution history is encouraging, and I think he's established a history of trustworthyness. Support. →Raul654 23:31, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think I can support just yet. Ike has certainly done some good things, but over half of those edits (which are definitely on the low end) have taken place in only the last month. The previous six months show bursts of editing for a day or two followed by long stretches of silence. Assuming ike continues to edit at the current pace, I think adminship would be in order...in another month, assuming ike had stayed around and showed real sustained interest here, I'd nominate him/her myself. At present, I don't feel comfortable doing so, unless there are multiple testimonials here from people who've collaborated with ike. Jwrosenzweig 00:02, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) Having considered things more, and seen that ike really does seem like he's settled in and contributing very regularly (heck, more regularly than I am, these days), I withdraw my objection and extend a perhaps-still-slightly-tentative support. My apologies to ike for the initial reluctance. Jwrosenzweig 20:50, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think he can handle it. silsor 02:30, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Danny 15:18, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Texture 20:51, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

De-adminship

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=2295212"