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 Kaihsu (talk | contribs) at 18:48, 26 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 and Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats.

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

Arvindn

Arvindn has between 1000- 1500 edits since Nov 2002 and has stepped up his contribution lately. He is knowledgeable, reliable, balanced and consistent. I have come across his contributions mostly with reference to India- related edits, however as his user page suggests, he has other interests too. He would be valuable as an administrator. KRS 13:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. An excellent contributor Chancemill 14:19, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm surprised he wasn't nominated sooner. Angela. 17:33, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems a most sensible user. Charles Matthews 17:39, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tillwe

Nearly 2000 edits from October 2002. Good entries on European politics and Green issues. -- Kaihsu 20:21, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

  • It's not easy to say no when so many people say yes, so I'll accept it (happily, with many thanks and feeling honoured) to be nominated -- even if I don't think that I will be able to spend much more time than now with Wikipedia. If I'll be made administrator, I hope I don't have to change my way of using and working with Wikipedia very much. In becoming an admin I see mostly a bit of extra responsibility, and hopefully will behave accordingly to that ;-) -- till we *) 10:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  1. Support. According to the best of my knowledge and belief, Tillwe will be a useful and good admin. Optim 20:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. Thought he/she already was an admin! --Delirium 20:40, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. Agree with Delirium...when I saw "support tillwe" at RC, I thought tillwe was asking to be made bureaucrat! :-) Jwrosenzweig 20:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely support. Kosebamse 20:51, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. Sure, he sounds responsible and probably won't go loco like so many others have. --Menchi 21:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. Michael Snow 22:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support 172 23:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. Angela. 02:33, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support. Tuf-Kat 15:11, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support Secretlondon 17:42, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Uncle Ed 21:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support. --Jiang
  13. Support. Perl 14:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 13 support, 0 oppose. Ends 20:21, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Hadal

Hadal has been here since December, 2003 and has about 1,900 contributions. He has made numerous good contributions and has handled himself well with regard to dealing with vandalism and other problems and issues. I think he would make a good admin. Maximus Rex 05:49, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Count me as neutral. I do think Hadal is a good choice for adminship, but I'm worried about the fact he's been here less than three months. Angela. 13:57, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The time period is shortish, but hard to imagine that I would think differently two months for now. Stan 17:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support glady. He's very attentive and responsive. This gemmologist will make a friendly admin. --Menchi 09:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Perl 00:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I too am concerned a little about the briefness of time here, but I think it's borderline enough that Hadal's good record of edits and combatting the occasional vandal makes him a wise choice. Jwrosenzweig 17:41, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think his edits prove him trustworthy. Metasquares 18:28, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 4 support, 1 neutral -- ends 05:49, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

BL

BL is a calm, reasonable user (since 2002) diligently working on a contentious set of articles. 172 09:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Wow. It's extremely flattering to be nominated admin. Thanks for the wikilove hugs all around. Yeah I do still want to become a sysop. But I've long since realised that I'm not one to win any popularity contents. I won't let that, or the baseless accusations made agaisnt me above (that wont be dignified with a response), bother me or effect my enjoyment of Wikipedia. BL 22:38, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Support votes:

  1. Support (implicit). BTW, why wasn't I included in the vote tally until now? It was my nomination! 172
  2. Support. Uncle Ed 14:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. Viajero 14:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. Anyone who can stay calm while working on the most inflammatory articles in Wikipedia deserves to be a sysop. --No-One Jones 17:45, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. Stewart Adcock 00:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. Down with the cabal! Lirath Q. Pynnor
  7. Tough call. I don't think a persons opinions should be held against him, like they were the last time round, so I would lean towards supporting, but count me as noncommittal for the time being. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 16:53, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC) After consideration, I am wholly unconvinced by the arguments presented against his gaining adminship. Mark me as a support. It would be a boon to have him promoted. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 22:21, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. Very active and Started a number of valuable articles. May05 17:10, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support Secretlondon 17:43, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support ugen64 03:49, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. Based on the opposition BL received the last time he was on this page, I'd like to know whether his reasons for wanting to be a sysop have changed before I vote. See also [1]. Angela. 16:01, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
  2. (removing my response to Angela in light of BL's newer comments)

Oppose votes:

  1. Oppose. Maximus Rex 21:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Angela doesn't trust BL, so i don't trust BL. Alexandros 22:13, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose for now. I think recruiting a radical "inclusionist" is a bad idea. He votes "keep" even on trash that could qualify for instant deletion. --Jiang 00:52, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Wants to put the project at risk by promoting wholesale copyright infringement [2]. Perhaps he should fork, as he suggested in the post. --Michael Snow 16:44, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, for same same reasons as Michael Snow. -- Seth Ilys 22:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Hasn't met an article, no matter how ridiculous, that he thinks shouldn't be kept. RickK 05:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. He takes WP for a joke. Hahaha. --Menchi 09:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. --Imran 14:54, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. --mav
  10. Oppose. silsor 23:37, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 10 support, 10 oppose, 1 neutral. Ends 09:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Requests for adminship

Please add new requests to the top

David Newton

  • I've been editing the Wikipedia since last June. In that time, I have made just over 2,100 major edits, and a lot more minor edits. I don't generally edit pages that involve edit wars, although I did make one rather rash edit last November about Malathir Mohammed. I occasionally make mistakes when creating pages, thus leading to URLs with typos in them. If nothing else, I would like the ability to remove those without bothering anybody else!
  • Support --Rlandmann 08:06, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Angela. 17:33, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

RadicalBender

  • I think I'm in the same boat as Graham listed below. :) I've been kind of lurking on this page to get a feel for what happens here. I've been here since September 2003 (with a temporary hiatus from editing because of real life "busyness") and have about 2,000 edits to by credit. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is Edit #2000 exactly (at least, I've been trying to time it as such). :) Anyways, I usually don't make requests like this myself if it can be helped (it seems..."presumptuous" to me, I think), but I would like the additional capabilities to help ward off vandals. RadicalBender 17:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nanshu 02:05, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very impressive history. Great images uploaded. Thorough edits. Well-thoughtout redirects. Battles with vandals. No edit wars. Likes baseball. Kingturtle 02:23, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm quite impressed by his user history as well. He's been quite a diligent and active copyeditor. 172 02:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Angela. 17:33, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Quality contributor. Jwrosenzweig 17:36, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Warofdreams 18:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Michael Snow 18:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Francs2000

  • I've been toying with the idea of requesting this for a few weeks now, and have been watching this page to see what goes on. I'm probably a borderline case. I've had this user name for five months and in that time have done almost 3,000 edits, including some disambiguation, fixing double redirects and recently tidying up the votes for deletion page. Before that I was an anonymous user for about five months and did some major editing to Buckinghamshire, Aylesbury and some other related pages. I would like admin abilities so that I can be involved more. -- Graham  :) 11:37, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Angela. 02:33, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. According to the best of my knowledge and belief, Francs2000 will be a useful and good admin. Optim 03:16, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The few times I've encountered him here, he seems to be doing very good work. Jwrosenzweig 19:26, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems sensible G-Man 23:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Francs2000 speaks modestly; he is a prime candidate for sysophod. --cprompt 02:43, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good edits. Interest in thwarting vandals. No history of edit wars or trolling at all. Kingturtle 02:36, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Warofdreams 18:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Michael Snow 18:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

CdaMVvWgS

  • I'm interested in becoming administrator because I did many edits when I was logged in and lots of edits when I was logged out (The most articles about Nauru and Basel are created and edited by myself). I think it doesn't matter anybody when I'd be an administrator. When there is someone who agrees with me it would be nice. Greetings. CdaMVvWgS
    • Oppose at present; there aren't enough edits under his username to fairly judge. Perhaps he should assign non-logged in edits to his username. -- Seth Ilys 21:49, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I'm not convinced CdaMVvWgS knows enough about how Wikipedia works to be an admin just yet. Angela. 21:58, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Only 300 edits since November, and unpronounceable name means I won't be even be able to remember who he is. It's hard enough now to distinguish between 172 and 168. --Uncle Ed
  • At a minimum would have to change username to a recognizable one. (btw, I have no trouble keeping 172 and 168 apart - 172 reminds me of my birthday). -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 00:39, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Conditional support if those 300 edits are verifiable, and user agrees to a name change. --cprompt 02:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • CdaMVvWgS, keep up the good work. IMHO, you are not yet qualified to be an admin (this is a vote in opposition), but someday you definitely could! So hang in there. And don't change your user name. Kingturtle 03:01, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll support, as the edit history, though short, looks strong enough. And Ed, I just think of him as "C-Dam". Meelar 03:20, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

waltersimons

I would like to thank everyone for their support but I have decided to withdraw from the race for administrator. Let me quote Wes Clark one last time:

"This is the end of the campaign for the administrator. But it's not the end of the cause."

You can still fulfill my second request, however, and kick Bush out of the White House!

Requests for bureaucratship

Please add new requests to the top

denny

Maybe this is the wrong place, but I'd like to ask for bureaucratship on the Croatian Wikipedia. The request on the inlwiki-l mailing list, it seems, have not been seen. I have made quite some edits on the English and German Wikipedia, I am here for months, I didn't get into any edit wars, and I have a long history of edits on the Croatian Wikipedia (the only Wikipedia I asked for adminship. It was granted immeadiatly then). I don't ask for bureaucratship because I want the power, but in order to achieve greater autonomy and independence for the Croatian Wikipedia. If this is the wrong place to ask, I kindly ask to be forgiven and to be told, where to ask actually, but I thought, only developers can make anyone a bureaucrat, and well, our developers are not seperated by language, so I can ask here as well (thinking, that the number of Croatian speaking developers is probably pretty small :). --denny vrandečić 16:24, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

  1. Support. --Uncle Ed 18:26, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

All sysops

I nominate all sysops to be bureaucrats to save having to vote on everyone twice. Angela. 02:33, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • All sysops who appear on this page? or All sysops of Wikipedia as they appear in Wikipedia:Administrators ? Optim 03:18, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I mean any sysop who asks to be one. I don't think there should be a vote each time. They can just put their name here and be made one right away. Angela. 04:04, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Since bureaucrats can only make sysops, not de-sysop anybody, I don't see why the ability can't be given to all sysops. Also, it would get rid of the name bureaucrat, which has negative implications to many people. All sysops would have to abide by RfA procedures, of course. Creating a sysop without following the process would be a serious misuse of admin privileges. --Michael Snow 16:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Makes sense to me. I don't like the idea of a new level of hierarchy. Like most things here, sysoping someone can, technically speaking, be undone, so it is not like it is a dangerous weapon. -- Viajero 16:57, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Viajero - keep the hierarchy to a minimum. →Raul654 17:45, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Unlike Optim, I can't think of any admin who couldn't be trusted with this ability. Certainly it makes more sense than marching the 100+ of us through here (and honestly, I think most of us would like the option to be able promote). Jwrosenzweig 17:46, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. In my mind, this whole bureaucrat idea seems somewhat superfluous anyway. Stewart Adcock 19:22, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. conditionally. It doesn't need to be thrusted. Give it to only those who request, but to so immediately since the requests are almost occupying half this page. Giving bureaucrat status to inactive accounts is a bad idea. Unlike the other admin functions, only a few people need to hold the power. --Jiang 03:44, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  7. I seriously doubt that any sysop would abuse bureaucrat powers... and in what way is making someone a bureaucrat any more dangerous than, say, vandalizing the main page or blocking sysops for no reason? ugen64 04:25, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
    (I have already voted Oppose above) Try to imagine what a drunk sysop who gets mad could do: he/she could grant sysop access to trolls and vandals. then, they could do the same, and start destoying Wikipedia. In such a case only an SQL query could fix the db. isn't this enough for having a separate hierarchy level? Optim 04:50, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  8. Did you have someone special in mind? :-D Anyway, I don't think we should have anyone who wishes to destoy wikipedia as even a sysop. That is teh correct level for our last and only line of defence. Anyway, count me as a suppository for the concept of sysop=Bureaucrat. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 03:07, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. Defer, too new to wikipedia. (once user:allsysops has more than 1,000,000,000,000 edits, I will support. Perl 15:31, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Oppose. Wouldn't that defeat the point of having a separate bureaucrat status in the first place? Metasquares 13:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes it would, but are there any sysops who would not be supported should they apply for bureaucrat status? If sysops are going to apply for it, I can't see the point of voting on them. Angela. 13:18, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I may trust someone to hit the "delete" or the "block" linky, but I may not like him/her to have the ability of sysoping. Optim 16:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. If sysops are going to have greater powers than now, this sort of snap vote is hardly the way to do it. Charles Matthews 22:54, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, I'm already disturbed w all the power sysops have, why give them the power to reproduce as well?!? Sam Spade 23:01, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It isn't giving them any power as all requests still have to go through this page. The only change I would suggest is that a fixed percentage of votes be decided on that allows promotion. If this were agreed on, then there would be no decision-making aspect, thereby giving sysops no additional powers. Perhaps that could be discussed on the talk page? Angela. 23:37, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • That would be a system more clearly open to manipulation, wouldn't it? A fixed tally or percentage of votes doesn't say much, when typically under 10% of sysops vote in a given poll. Charles Matthews 15:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Bureaucrathood already carries a power that I consider to be far more dangerous than the ability to delete pages or ban users. Buraeucrathood could someday carry other powers. I disagree in automatically allowing all sysops to have bureaucrat powers (although I think most of them should be, anyway!) Perhaps, to streamline the process, we can allow people to request bureaucrathood without being an admin to begin with, and a consenting vote could imply adminship as well as bureaucrathood. --cprompt 02:39, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. It nearly defeats the purpose of having burocracy/democracy if the executive branch is also the legislative/judical. Gamera2 05:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Horrendous risk of rogue admin promoting sock puppets. --Uncle Ed 15:55, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • What if they did? Theose sock puppets could be desysopped easily enough and they wouldn't be able to do any more damage than the original rogue sysop could anyway. Angela. 17:33, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. 172 02:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. -- Kaihsu 18:46, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

Tally: 8 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral -- ends 02:33, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

172

I've been a sysop for quite a while too, and an active user since 2002. There ought to be a historian among the bureaucrats, BTW. 172 01:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Support Secretlondon 17:44, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support G-Man 23:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too contentious, too easily involved in edit wars, refuses to be civil. RickK 04:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Has a history of issues, including relatively recent edit wars. Maximus Rex 08:19, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Name is not memorable, and hasn't shown ability to respect consensus. Still good admin, though :-) --Uncle Ed 15:57, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. Bureaucrats aren't supposed to be memorable. The name is fine. --Jiang
  • Support. --Wik 19:21, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 4 support, 3 oppose -- ends 17:44, 02 Mar 2004 (UTC)

cprompt

I've been a sysop here for quite a while, and somewhat recently on the Simple English Wikipedia. I believe in the philosophy that being a sysop is "no big deal", and requests should only be denied if the community fears that a user will abuse the few powers given to sysops. I'm not a fan of sysops taking unilateral action, and I do not think that I have ever abused my awesome sysop powers. cprompt 18:16, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  2. It's all about trust, and I certainly think that cprompt is trustworthy enough to use the power that comes with bureaucracy responsibly. Metasquares 13:05, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Perl 23:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. RickK 04:07, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. Trustworthy, and has gained Lir's trust. --Uncle Ed 15:58, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. --Jiang

Tally: 6 support, 0 oppose -- ends 18:16, 01 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pakaran

I've been a sysop here for several months, and was one of the bureaucrats on meta for the 20 or so hours when that meant anything. I doubt I'd be promoting that many people with so many users of far greater insomnia abilities beating me to it, but I'd like to request bureaucrat status so that I can help out if it ever becomes necessary. Pakaran. 10:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Fuzheado 11:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Michael Snow 22:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think that Pakaran would make a great bureaucrat. Metasquares 13:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Secretlondon 17:47, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. RickK 04:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support strongly! One of the best sysops, very low-key but highly responsible. Provided the spark that made me decide to request bureaucrat rights rather than surreptiously assign them to myself. (If you can't decide between me and him, pick him!) --Uncle Ed 16:05, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • You mean I have to choose? ;-) Support. --cprompt 18:58, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. --Jiang
  • Oppose. Uncivil. --Wik 19:21, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Dysprosia 20:19, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 9 support, 1 oppose -- ends 10:08, 01 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Optim

  • I think it may be useful to be able grant adminship in the Greek Wikipedia (el:) in the future without bothering a developer. Hopefully I can be more useful as a bureaucrat. Optim 04:26, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. Fuzheado 11:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Support Secretlondon 17:44, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. --Jiang
    • Support. Not wanting to bother others is a good trait. You are my role model, Optim. --Uncle Ed 18:25, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 4 support, 0 oppose -- ends 11:01, 01 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Infrogmation

I've been a contributor to Wikipedia since September of 2002, and was granted admin status (without asking for it first) in February of 2003. I hang around Wikipedia a good deal and try to be helpful and useful. I request bureaucrat status. -- Infrogmation 17:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Decumanus 22:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Michael Snow 00:51, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support, fine sir. Kingturtle 10:29, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. Stan 17:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. Fuzheado 10:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. Uncle Ed 14:27, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  7. cprompt 03:11, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  8. Secretlondon 17:45, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  9. RickK 04:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  10. Jiang
  11. 172 02:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 11 support, 0 -- ends 17:39, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Kingturtle

I too would like to be a bureaucrat. I have been an admin for about nine months. Although I have strong (and sometimes unpopular) opinions, I am very careful how I utilize my admin powers; I consider my admin actions fair and in good wiki-spirit. I take my responsibilities as admin very seriously. I live best I can to the parting words of Larry Sanger, and of all the articles I've written I am most proud of Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz. Kingturtle 04:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  1. Support. Uncle Ed 13:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. →Raul654 16:51, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. theresa knott 19:43, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. jengod 22:29, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support Decumanus 22:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. Michael Snow 00:51, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. Stan 17:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. Fuzheado 10:58, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support. Infrogmation 18:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support. 172 01:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support. cprompt 03:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support RickK 04:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  13. Support --Jiang
  14. Support -- Kaihsu 18:45, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

Tally: 14 support, 0 oppose -- ends 04:38, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Requests for de-bureacratorship

Cimon Avaro

I would like asssurances that I will never be made a bureaucrat of any wikipedia. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 20:04, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Cimon should become super-bureaucrat overruling all bureaucrats on all Wikimedia projects. Angela. 20:43, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thrusting power on those who want it least? That's very American of you Angela. Good work ;) →Raul654 20:45, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • From what I've heard from Tim and Brion, this bureaucrat issue may be eliminated in the future. Support Cimon for non-bureaucratship. Maximus Rex 21:16, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • WOw WOw WOW ow WYu Must be a Bureauf5at because U cant spell it!! ugen64 </sacrasm> 04:34, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • You request will be considered once you've filled out form twenty-seven bee stroke zed in triplicate and file it at the wikipedia ministry of information. Fuzheado
  • Oppose -- Cimon cannot shirk his duties. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • Support. Change my mind. I can imagine him being a swing voter. 172 01:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) 172 01:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose! --Jiang
  • Support. --Wik 19:21, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a non-issue and we should not discuss it. -- Kaihsu 18:48, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

De-adminship

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=2540789"