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 Elf-friend (talk | contribs) at 23:17, 29 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

User:Eclecticology

User:Eclecticology is one of the site's most valuable contributors. With 6,500 edits since 2/02, he's practically a pioneer. His dillangance, breadth of knowledge, and amicable manner are unquestionable. 172 11:36, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Support. 172 11:36, 29 Feb 2004
  2. Support. Optim 11:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) Don't count my vote until Eclecticology stops calling Angela a bitch, as Angela claims below. After Eclecticology agrees to follow a spirit of wikilove and netiquette, you may count my vote. Optim 18:57, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. Perl 13:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. Neutral. Although I've not come across this user myself the opposition below is pretty strong, and I would like to hear Eclecticology's answer to them before I vote one way or the other. Graham  :) 17:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Assuming Eclecticology accepts the nomination, I would want to hear what he says in response to those who oppose the nomination before choosing a side. --cprompt 20:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Oppose strongly. Eclecticology thinks he has the right to ignore VfD consensus because he doesn't happen to like VfD. He repeatedly recreated hundreds of pages that had been deleted via VfD leaving myself, JeLuF, Minesweeper and Kingturtle to re-delete them. (Wikipedia:Deletion log archive/November 2003). He recently advocated edit wars ("Let me know... if you need help in reverting these changes") over the recipe articles rather than discussing the issues, making claims that, despite the fact these had been moved to Wikibooks and listed on VfD, that "Undeleting would be most appropriate. There's a need to stand up to these bullies." Eclecticology can not be trusted to not go round undeleting pages with no repsect to the undeletion policy. He has recently sent me highly abusive emails. I realise I may be taking this personally, but I don't think calling me bitch is really a sign of Wikilove. Angela. 14:25, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose on narrow-based grounds: given that this is administration rather than recognition, and the above, and that sysops enjoying more general confidence are being found, I wouldn't be happy with this. Charles Matthews 16:07, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Irresponsible edit wars, no sense of fair play, antagonises other users. Tannin 20:46, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Angela's comment is enough for me to feel very uncomfortable about this nomination. BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:01, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Ec has shown no respect for community consensus. Maximus Rex 22:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. Oppose strongly. He believes that only he has the right to decide what is and is not consensus and what is and is not to be deleted. He deleted VfD headers from pages listed on the VfD page because He gets to decide what's best, regardless of whethere there is a discussion or not, and he doesn't care about consensus on any subject. RickK 23:10, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose for the reasons above. Elf-friend 23:17, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mkmcconn

Mkmcconn has been here since September 2002 with over 3200 edits to his credit. He is especially good, in my experience, at untangling and defusing disputes over content of religion-based articles....a dangerous business indeed, and one that I think we are long overdue in rewarding with adminship. Jwrosenzweig 03:48, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Support. RickK 04:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. Maximus Rex 04:02, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. cprompt 08:31, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. Pfortuny 09:03, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. Graham  :) 17:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:01, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Texture

I am nominating Texture for adminship. He does a great job of keeping an eye on new contributions and catching any vandalisms. I haven't noticed any wrongdoings on the part of Texture, and I think Wikipedia could use another watchful eye on RC. The bare facts: over 1300 edits, been here since November 20. Dori | Talk 03:01, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Dori.
  2. --Jiang 13:02, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Angela. 16:56, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
  4. cprompt 19:38, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. Danny
  6. Has been alert and careful in spotting vandalism. -- Infrogmation 20:10, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)~
  7. Perl 20:18, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  8. participates in lots of general maintenance. Is involved heavily in VfD. It would help him and us if he could delete VfD results too.Kingturtle 00:31, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support--solid and positive contributor. Jwrosenzweig 03:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  10. Graham  :) 17:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  11. --Meelar 18:03, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support. Doing a great job already. BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:01, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Considers trolling humour. --Wik 03:36, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 12 support, 1 oppose -- ends 03:01, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

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:

  1. KRS
  2. An excellent contributor Chancemill 14:19, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
  3. I'm surprised he wasn't nominated sooner. Angela. 17:33, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Seems a most sensible user. Charles Matthews 17:39, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. More Indians is good. Secretlondon 20:19, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
  6. -- Infrogmation 21:17, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  7. Perl 03:33, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  8. --cprompt 19:36, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  9. -- Danny 19:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  10. --Wik 00:35, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  11. - Support. Angela's right. I'm not only surprised that he wasn't nominated sooner; I was under the assumption that he was. Great work on mathematics and Indian history. 172 00:42, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  12. Graham  :) 17:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 12 support, 0 oppose -- ends 13:51, 04 Mar 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)

Support:

  1. Kaihsu
  2. According to the best of my knowledge and belief, Tillwe will be a useful and good admin. Optim 20:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Thought he/she already was an admin! --Delirium 20:40, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
  4. 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)
  5. Absolutely support. Kosebamse 20:51, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. Sure, he sounds responsible and probably won't go loco like so many others have. --Menchi 21:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  7. Michael Snow 22:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  8. 172 23:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  9. Angela. 02:33, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Tuf-Kat 15:11, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Secretlondon 17:42, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Uncle Ed 21:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  13. --Jiang
  14. Perl 14:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  15. -- Infrogmation 21:17, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  16. -- Stewart Adcock 17:12, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  17. Totally. RickK 07:57, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  18. Dori | Talk 16:36, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
  19. --cprompt 19:36, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)~
  20. --Danny 19:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  21. Definitely. Jake 00:52, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
  22. Absolutely. →Raul654 17:58, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  23. 11:30, 29 Feb 2004 . . Sj. <AOL>. WP needs more admins with such respect for others.
  24. Support, of course. Tannin 20:50, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  25. Support. BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:01, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 25 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)

Wow! I'd like to thank Maximus for the nomination and everyone for their kind comments and support. I've never been one to impose; to make others uncomfortable is not why I'm here. So, assuming there are no express objections to my adminship, I'd be both honoured and happy to accept. I can say in confidence that I will not take my duties lightly. Thanks again! -- Hadal 03:29, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Maximus Rex
  2. 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)
  3. Support gladly. He's very attentive and responsive. This gemmologist will make a friendly admin. --Menchi 09:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. Perl 00:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. I think his edits prove him trustworthy. Metasquares 18:28, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  7. Secretlondon 20:20, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support, along the same lines as Metasquares. Ryan and/or Mero 06:29, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
  9. --cprompt 16:54, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  10. jengod 01:49, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
  11. --Danny 19:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support. Thought he was one already. →Raul654 17:58, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Support. Newish, but a good sense of balance. Tannin 20:50, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. 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)
  2. I'm neutral too. I agree with Angela, while noting he has been very good so far. BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:01, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. It is simply too soon. We should not set this precedent. I will gladly support Hadal in a few months. Kingturtle 00:33, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose solely on the grounds that Hadal hasn't been here long enough. RickK 23:13, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 13 support, 2 neutral, 1 opposed -- ends 05:49, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Self nominations for adminship

Please add new requests to the top

User:Bensaccount

I want the power to

  1. Unprotect pages.
  2. Move pages.

Giving me this power would improve the encyclopedia because I would

  1. Unprotect the site DNA
  2. Move this page to deoxyribonucleic acid and change the DNA page to a disambiguation page.

I have come across many such cases where a disambiguation page is needed. I have no power greed. I will not post a huge resume to get power. I will just say what I want and why I want it. Bensaccount 16:17, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Support:

Oppose:

  1. Oppose. I'm not satisfied with your reason for wanting admin status, incidentally DNA already has its own disambiguation page at DNA (disambiguation). Graham  :) 17:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This is the wrong format Bensaccount 20:37, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. I think you should get a userpage before applying for adminship. Perl 18:54, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think its better that admins spend their time working on the encyclopedia Bensaccount 20:43, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. After some months have passed, can be reconsidered. Tannin 20:50, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Simply too soon. BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:01, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Still very new, and ignores standard procedures even after having them pointed out. Isomorphic 22:14, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Too new, doesn't yet understand some Wikipedia conventions. -- Infrogmation 22:41, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Seems to want to be a sysop just to be able to cause trouble on DNA, hasn't even been here a month. RickK 23:16, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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:

  1. Rlandmann 08:06, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Angela. 17:33, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Secretlondon 20:33, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Geoff 21:27, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. Uncle Ed 18:31, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. cprompt 02:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. David has guts—he isn't afraid to stand up for other users. (pumpie) Perl 15:14, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. →Raul654 17:58, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support. BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:01, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. I dont think that fixing your own mistakes is enough of a reason for wanting adminship. Bensaccount 20:31, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 9 support, 1 oppose -- ends 08:06, 04 Mar 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:

  1. Nanshu 02:05, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. Angela. 17:33, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Quality contributor. Jwrosenzweig 17:36, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. Warofdreams 18:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  7. Michael Snow 18:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  8. Secretlondon 20:53, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Infrogmation 21:17, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  10. Danny 19:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  11. Graham  :) 17:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  12. Good, level-headed contributor. BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:01, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 12 Support, 0 Opposed -- ends 17:22, 03 Mar 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)
  1. Support. Angela. 02:33, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. Support. The few times I've encountered him here, he seems to be doing very good work. Jwrosenzweig 19:26, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. Seems sensible G-Man 23:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. Francs2000 speaks modestly; he is a prime candidate for sysophod. --cprompt 02:43, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. Good edits. Interest in thwarting vandals. No history of edit wars or trolling at all. Kingturtle 02:36, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. Warofdreams 18:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. Michael Snow 18:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support. (web of trust thing) --Uncle Ed 20:02, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support Secretlondon 20:55, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support. Danny 19:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 11 support, 0 oppose -- ends 11:37, 01 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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)

Support:

  1. --Uncle Ed 18:26, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Denny is the heart and soul of the Croatian Wikipedia. -- Zmaj 07:23, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. --cprompt 16:57, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. It doesn't make much sense not to do this :) --Shallot 02:30, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 4 support, 0 oppose -- ends 16:24, Mar 4, 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. Down with the cabal! Lirath Q. Pynnor
  8. 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)
  9. Support. After speaking to Angela on IRC, I'm convinced that a whole bunch of sockpuppets would be easy to deal with. It would be noticed quickly if someone was sysopped who wasn't on Requests for adminship, and the original offending sysop can be desysopped, and his actions undone with relative ease, as well as the actions of any of his puppets. --cprompt 16:17, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  10. (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)
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)
You know what we do with suppositories, don't you? ;-) -- Viajero 21:42, 27 Feb 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)
  2. I would support eliminating the "bureaucrat" status and replacing it instead with an interface where 2 sysops are required to elevate a user to sysop status. This would help eliminate another level of artificial heirarchy, while still stopping a "lone sysop gone crazy", or more likely, a single sysop whose interpretation of consensus differs from the community's consensus of what a consensus is. Most of the issues with sysop status is that, by precedent, once someone is a made a sysop, they are perpetually a sysop (with the exception of outright vandalism). Maximus Rex 08:02, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  • 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)
  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. 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)
  6. 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)
  7. Oppose. 172 02:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. -- Kaihsu 18:46, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. I don't see much benefits with the proposal. I belive one should always keep some distance to all possibilities of 'disasters' - if a unfortunate promotion to sysadm is made, there should be some minimum time until the user might become a bureaucrat - by basically the same reason a 'ordinary user' doesn't become a sysadms immediately upon request. And, I'm not sure about how its done in practice, but is it possible for a bureaucrat, in this proposal, to create new bureaucrats? That would, for sure, be disastrous. Mikez 04:13, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, bureaucrats can create other bureaucrats. Angela. 16:56, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, all that separation of power fun-stuff Fennec 16:04, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  11. Oppose on the grounds that I don't like general, blanket statements. Dori | Talk 16:36, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Danny 19:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. There needs to be a process. Kingturtle 21:54, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC) P.S. More importantly, if there is a process, we should not have proxy votes. Votes need to be cast by each individual. Kingturtle 03:55, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  14. Oppose for two reasons: 1) i dont want to be a beaurocrat, not even a fake one; 2) it would spoil the fun for everybody who thrills with nominations and votings. Muriel 07:48, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 11 support, 14 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:

  1. Secretlondon 17:44, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  2. G-Man 23:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Bureaucrats aren't supposed to be memorable. The name is fine. --Jiang
  4. --Wik 19:21, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  6. Perl 21:25, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Too contentious, too easily involved in edit wars, refuses to be civil. RickK 04:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Has a history of issues, including relatively recent edit wars. Maximus Rex 08:19, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • How are edit wars relevant to the role of bureaucrat? All they can do is sysop people that already have support on this page. That won't help them in edit wars. Angela. 16:56, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, for the reasons above. cprompt 16:39, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Among those voting, the users who work with me on a regular basis (Jiang, Lir, and G-Man) are casting a support vote. That should be considered. 172 02:56, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. 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)
  5. At least for now; in my experience major problems with civility and collaboration with others. Admins and prob even more so bureaurcrats need maturity and respect for consensus. -- VV 17:04, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 6 support, 5 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
  7. Support. Meelar 01:12, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. Crackshoe 17:40, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC) (This is a sock puppet account →Raul654)
    • No, it's a friend of mine who I've introduced to Wikipedia today. Disregard the vote if newbies don't count. --cprompt 19:31, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not a sock puppet, and i've started entry on Slick Idiot and added a Misfits filmography. It just took me a few hours before i had time to start editing. Crackshoe 21:40, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I apologize for labelling you a socket puppet, but under the circumstances, it was a reasonable thing to think. Please do not be discouraged, I meant you no offense. →Raul654 21:47, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Oppose. Prone to making unfair accusations 172 02:56, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 8 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:

  1. Fuzheado 11:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Michael Snow 22:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. I think that Pakaran would make a great bureaucrat. Metasquares 13:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. Secretlondon 17:47, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  5. RickK 04:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. 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)
  7. You mean I have to choose? ;-) Support. --cprompt 18:58, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  8. Jiang
  9. Dysprosia 20:19, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  10. Jwrosenzweig 00:56, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  11. Fennec 16:02, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  12. Dori | Talk 16:36, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
  13. →Raul654 17:58, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Opposed:

  1. Uncivil. --Wik 19:21, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 12 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:

  1. Fuzheado 11:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Secretlondon 17:44, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jiang
  4. Not wanting to bother others is a good trait. You are my role model, Optim. --Uncle Ed 18:25, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. Of course. Dori | Talk 16:36, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Danny 19:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  7. Easy call, he is doubleplusgood. :) Sam Spade 21:19, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  8. cprompt 08:28, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  9. Υποστήριξη (if that was translated correctly...) Κσυπ Cyp   15:29, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Correct translation! :)
  10. Support. →Raul654 17:58, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 9 support, 0 oppose -- ends 11:01, 01 Mar 2004 (UTC)

De-adminship

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=2577019"