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 168... (talk | contribs) at 20:26, 19 February 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats for a list of users entrusted to grant sysop rights.

Guidelines

Current Wikipedia policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. Most users seem to agree that the more administrators there are the better.

Wikipedians are more likely to support the candidacy of people who have been logged-on contributors for some months and contributed to a variety of articles without often getting into conflicts with other users.

Nomination. Users can nominate other users for administrator. Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nor can they nominate others. The absolute minimum requirement to be involved with adminship matters is to have a username in the system.
Self-nomination. If you want to nominate yourself to become an administrator, it is recommended that you have been a user for a reasonable period of time - long enough to be regarded as 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 or bureaucrat 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

Redwolf

I hereby nominate RedWolf for adminship. Since his first edit on 26 Oct 2003, he has made over 6000 edits, a significant proportion of which relate to disambiguation. He has authored many new articles and submitted several wonderful pictures. As far as I can tell, he hasn't been involved in any dispute, which seems to be a feat in itself at the moment. RedWolf clearly has a good understanding of Wikipedia and I think he will make a fine admin. Stewart Adcock 17:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination Stewart and I graciously accept said nomination. I'll help out with any administrative type tasks when I can (and time permits) but I understand that adminship does not demand any such tasks be carried out on any regular basis. RedWolf 04:46, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (Based on above, haven't verified... somebody please verify) --Hemanshu 17:47, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Tuf-Kat

ChrisO

ChrisO is a good contributor and should be a sysop if he wants. He has shown remarkable patience with difficult users. --Wik 00:06, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • (Not a vote) - User has been here since October 21 and has 940 edits. →Raul654 00:10, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Did a complete rewrite of Kosovo War that was really needed, and has handled himself well with those that brought it to that state. Dori | Talk 00:14, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Chris appears to have a good understanding of Wikipedia and would make a good sysop. Angela. 07:39, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Immense patience shown. Morwen 07:40, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A really good contributor and works towards NPOV on controversial articles on central/east european topics. Secretlondon 07:51, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support 172 08:22, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support; nothing but net, as far I can see... Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 09:19, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Tuf-Kat
  • Support. I've known Chris O since the early days of the Scientology Internet war. He has treated this infamously controversial subject with honesty and lack of bias, and he has contributed enormously to those subjects here along with many others. --Modemac 20:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've seen nothing but good from Mr. O. --No-One Jones 21:29, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, welcome aboard! Meelar 02:01, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. john 04:28, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. He's done a fine and much needed job on the Kosovo related articles, and seems sensible....G-Man 18:47, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Primarily because Wik trusts him. --Uncle Ed 19:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Crikey - I wasn't expecting this at all! Thanks for the support, it's genuinely unexpected and I'm glad to have been able to make a contribution. So, ummm... do I get a gold star now or something? :-) -- ChrisO 23:45, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, in 5 more days if there's still a consensus some bureaucrate will make you an admin. --Uncle Ed 19:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 14 for, 0 against.

DavidWBrooks

I nominate DavidWBrooks -- he'd been a help today at Curse of the Bambino...when I went to thank him, I realized he'd been here since January 2003, with over 1,100 edits. He seems like a real pleasant and intelligent fellow, and I think he would make an excellent admin. Jwrosenzweig 21:41, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 6 for, 0 against. Can hardly wait for tomorrow! --Uncle Ed 19:12, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jengod

I'd like to nominate Jengod. She's been here since May 2003, and has over 4,500 edits. She's quite pleasant to work with. I thought she was an admin already, but apparently she's not. →Raul654 05:23, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you kindly Mr. Kitty in a Glass man. I didn't know if I wanted to get deeper in, but I suspect I was kidding myself--I'm pretty far deep in already. :) jengod 06:30, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC) (Haha - you don't get called that everyday :) →Raul654 22:19, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC))

  • Support Tuf-Kat
  • eek! Support. --Jiang
  • Good choice -- Viajero 09:26, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Bmills 09:32, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Defer (for now) Support (in light of explanation below). If Jiang is supporting you then I guess things are OK, but could you explain what was going on at Leland Stanford? Dori | Talk 16:12, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, I bumped into that a few days ago too. What is with that? Stubbornness will lead to many many more stupid edit wars over puny matters like that. Quite unnecessary. --Menchi 16:48, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • FWIW, I was editing at home on my 56K modem (slooooow) and so didn't check the edit history--if I'd known it was Jiang I would have totally stepped off--I wasn't entirely sure if my edits were contradicting someone or if it was just a wonky server. Anyway, after I saw Jiang's notes the next day and did some investigation, I'm now totally on board with the "anything bigger than a paragraph is a short article, but not a stub" train. jengod 16:54, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Since it's merely a misunderstanding, I'll support Jennifer. She's been great otherwise. --Menchi 17:00, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support unconditionally. -- Decumanus 22:14, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Quality work. Meelar 23:35, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good balance of dedication and positive attitude. Jwrosenzweig 00:10, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Jengod has good taste in television programming. --Ed Senft! 00:20, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Danny 17:30, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Jake 22:00, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Warofdreams 16:13, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Hemanshu 17:49, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Kaihsu 20:51, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)
  • Support. -- john 04:27, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Infrogmation 15:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Pakaran. 16:08, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Texture 18:24, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Optim 20:08, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 19 for, 0 against. Tomorrow you WILL be a god! --Uncle Ed 19:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Assuming Ed's count is correct, the current tally is: 20 support. Optim 20:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Requests for adminship

Please add new requests to the top

Requests for bureaucratship

Please add new requests to the top

Ed Poor

I'd like to be a bureaucrat. I am a developer and used to be just about the only one who did sysop promotion. I think I'm good enough at detecting consensus to be trusted with the "promote" button. --Uncle Ed 18:13, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • I have to oppose. This user has assumed the worst about me (going so far as to publically suggest I am a banned user) and has variously failed to strike me as someone with an astute appraisel of others. Sam Spade 18:36, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No, I just suspected you were a "sock puppet". (If you're Jack Lynch, then I'm right.) If I thought you were using a sock puppet to evade a ban, I would have contacted Brion or Tim privately.
      • Actually, you accused me of perhaps being EoT [1]. I notice it is hard to keep track of your mistaken allegations, but this one at least will be mentioned here. Your insinuation that I might utilize a sock puppet is similarilly a poor example of your assesment of charector. The multiple accusations against me have caused me to develop a less than favorable opinion of you (one that incidentilly I am striving to shed, as I DO see you as a good admin.) I just don't think this is the right timing nor circumstance for a promotion. Sam Spade 02:45, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Ed, this user was previously User:JackLynch. He asked to have his username changed, and Tim did so. The confusion results from the fact that Jack/Sam doesn't like other people pointing out that User:JackLynch is now User:Sam Spade, as I'm now doing. - snoyes 22:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Thanks, kinda :p Sam Spade 02:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think Ed has established a reputation for himself as being very fair. →Raul654 18:21, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just days ago he asked to be desysopped, and I'm still waiting for that. --Wik 18:22, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wik, assuming you mean that seriously, I think I should tell you that (as best I can tell) Ed was being sarcastic about the desysopping. →Raul654 23:44, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
      • Probably, but he should have been serious. He violated the rules, and should be temporarily desysopped for it. --Wik 23:47, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Anthony DiPierro 18:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Hopefully we will get a chance to elect bureaucrats in future. Warofdreams 18:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The decisions of a bureaucrat will be transparent anyway -- if they don't promote someone who is obviously supported, there will be unrest. :-) I say that as a general argument: certainly I trust Ed's judgment even if it was not transparent. Jwrosenzweig 18:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ed is a real good guy and excellent Wikipedian that is able to admit when he is wrong. I don't think that he will promote any users that should not be. --mav 23:40, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: as a Developer, I could promote myself with a SET user_rights = "bureaucrat" query, but I'm not going to do that. I ain't no stinkin' unilateralist, man! I go with the flow, seeking that perfect balance between wave and board so eloquently promoted by my sock puppet, er, alter ego, "Surfer Dude". --Uncle Ed 19:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Refusing to act? Spoken like a true bureaucrat. Refusing to act unilaterally. Spoken like a true Wikipedia bureaucrat. Support, and thank you Ed for taking this task on board, alongside the mailing list administration and the tireless article mediation you've done for so well for a long time now. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:41, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Jiang
  • Support. jengod 01:05, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I commend Ed for taking the initiative to make bureaucrat status subject to a vote. However, it's a little confusing to see it listed as a request for adminship. We either need a separate section for this, or a separate page. --Michael Snow 01:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Disagree strongly. As I've said three times in the last hour, Wikipedia already has a lot of pages that require maintenence, and the last thing we need is another. There are going to be very, very few requests for beuracratic status, so (for the few we do get) this page would suit us just fine. →Raul654 01:16, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. Danny 02:41, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, how do we know that if he runs the promomtion query granting him those powers, that he won't abuse his new powers? Perhaps the reason he is asking to be invited to run the query to grant himself the powers is the same reason vampires need to be invited to enter a house (which I however never quite understood)... Ok, just joking. Support. Κσυπ Cyp   14:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I really respect Ed for holding some strong, minority points of view without getting in revert wars over them, not to mention for managing to calm down Gdansk. Pakaran. 14:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I would support Ed Poor personally, but since I am a member of the Mediation Committee, count me as neutral. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 14:54, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Infrogmation 15:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Arwel 18:51, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. theresa knott 20:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support/Oppose, depending. I'm afraid I agree with some of what Sam/Jack said, that Ed is a hasty and judgmental appraiser of behavior. I also agree that he is good spirited. To the extent people express their feelings clearly, and to the extent the exact degree of concensus necessary for promotion to syshophood is clear, then I trust that Ed knows how to count, is honest, and will respect what he perceives to be the wishes of the community. But I don't consider him either an astute judge of nuances or a master of restraint. I'd like to know better what the job entails before I either support or oppose.168...|...Talk 20:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 15 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral

15 to 2 is a good as you could hope with a group that large. Consensus ≠ unanimous. I say make yourself a bureaucrat. →Raul654 20:20, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

De-adminship

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=2448096"