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 Mkweise (talk | contribs) at 22:13, 28 March 2004 (=User:666= adding response options). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Communitypage

Important notes

Note: A closely related vote is going on at meta:Developer access - if the vote is approved, the chosen users will share the non-technical responsibilities and authority presently held by Brion Vibber, Tim Starling, and the other developers. Nominate your favorite colleague today, and don't forget to vote!

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.

If you vote, please update the heading. If you nominate someone, you may wish to vote to support them.

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

Decumanus; (11/0/1) ends 18:45 3 Apr (UTC)

Decumanus has been here about 3 months and has about 5,800 edits. He has created dozens of well written nonstub articles, many with properly licensed images. He communicates well, acts responsibly, and has a good understanding of wikipedia. I think he would make an excellent administrator. Maximus Rex 18:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I accept. Thank you. I would like be able to fight vandalism more easily and do my share of housework on Wikipedia:Images for deletion and other maintenance pages. -- Decumanus | Talk 16:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Maximus Rex 18:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. Decumanus' work has been huge. I know he'd be a plus! Cecropia 18:48, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Danny 19:04, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Angela. No longer too soon.
  5. By all means, support! Dysprosia 01:47, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Absolutely. I was about to do this myself. Meelar 01:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Despite some reservations about Quickpoll votes, he deserves it. GrazingshipIV 05:55, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
  8. +sj+ 15:12, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC) Indeed.
  9. Bkonrad | Talk 16:04, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) I inadvertently added my name to the wrong list. Decumanus has made valuable contributions to many articles, and has always been very civil in discussions (even after I made dumb edits to a whole lot of articles)
  10. Support — Jor (Talk) 16:10, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support. RADICALBENDER★ 16:29, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support with absolute confidence. LUDRAMAN | T 20:06, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) - PS Decumanus is a great contributer on the Irish Wikipedia too...

Oppose:

Neutral:

  1. anthony 19:17, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia (9/2/1) ends 03:55, 3 Apr 2004

Cecropia has been involved in some hot editing at George W. Bush and has stayed cool. He is a constant presence on the talk page, and has been a very useful contributor on this and other topics. Here for 3 months, over 800 edits. Meelar 03:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for nomination, Meelar. I'm honored and pleased and hope the community will agree with you. I am interested in and try to contribute on a range of non-contentious subjects that I believe will add to Wikipedia. On subjects where I have a POV I try to see to it that my postings are accurate and document whenever I can. I try to honor those who disagree with me by being straightforward as to where I'm coming from. I suppose, to quote Marlowe's Faust, that "disputing" is one of the pleasures of an intellectual life, but I'm most pleased when we can reach a consensus, as we seem to on the Terrorism/Draft. Cecropia 04:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Meelar 03:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ambivalenthysteria 10:19, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Tuf-Kat 14:18, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Danny 14:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Bkonrad | Talk 14:46, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. — Jor (Talk) 15:56, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) We can use people that can keep their heads cool!
  7. I don't think the guidelines for sysophood are too important. Cecropia is a good example of why you don't need x number of edits to be a sysop. Ludraman | Talk 19:01, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. GrazingshipIV 05:56, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Decumanus | Talk 16:15, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Not yet enough experience here, IMHO. This is nothing personal. I will most probably support at a later date. Cecropia is a valued contributor. Kingturtle 17:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. This user set his personal support for George W. Bush over the interest of an unbiased community in numerous cases. E.g. he frequently used valuing expressions like "the argument is countered", and even included a lengthy paragraph about "French, German, Russian commercial conenction to Saddam's Iraq" in the GWBush entry. Get-back-world-respect 15:05, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know how appropriate it is for Get-back-world-respect to carry his personal feud over to this forum, but I am don't hide my opinions behind bogus justification ("the article is too large") but I see to it that my edits are as accurate and neutral as they can be, I supply respected citations on contentious subjects (including the French-German-Russian issue, where my main source was BBC), and I stand by the integrity of my submissions. I encourage anyone here to judge my work and my justifications in talk before voting for or against me. Cecropia 16:29, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Abstain:

  1. It is unclear to me why this person needs would better benefit the community with admin powers. -anthony
Well, I don't think that he needs it per se--no one person actually needs admin powers. I just think that both him and the community would benefit from it--Lord knows I couldn't deal with George W. Bush without my "rollback" button. Meelar 18:01, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fennec; (18/4/4) ends 00:41 3 April 2004

Fennec has been here for two months and made 635 edits. In that time, he has acted responsibly, contributing to the encyclopedia and the general dialogue surrounding its development. I think he would be a good sysop. Danny 00:41, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. I'd... hmm, it seems standard practice is "be honored to accept", so I'll blatantly steal that phrase from below. - Fennec 00:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Timwi 00:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Danny 00:46, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Although he is relativly new to Wikipedia, I support. Good to work with. Ludraman | Talk 00:47, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Fennec's stats may not look impressive, but he is very active on the IRC channel, and has helped fight off vandalism and contributed to policy discussions on multiple occasions (notably helping to document the Bird/Brain affair) -- being consistently thoughtful, humorous, inquisitive and courteous. I was going to nominate him two couple weeks ago until I saw how new he was; but RfA votes should be based upon reputation and past actions; based on those criteriaFennec will make an excellent admin. -- Seth Ilys 00:51, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Definitely. ugen64 01:13, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Fennec is relatively new, but he has been very active in that time and appears to have an excellent understanding of Wikipedia policies. Angela. 01:13, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. Nice to have you. Meelar 01:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. I know him from other IRC channels too, and his Edit history looks good too. He won't wreak havoc for sure. --moeffju 01:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support. I'll trust the others who can vouch for him. Moncrief 01:27, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Again a good case for flexibility of guidelines. Unlikely to act any worse, no matter how long we wait. -- J-V Heiskanen 04:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support. Confident that he'd do well. Ambivalenthysteria 10:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support. Looks good to me. -- ChrisO 14:10, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  13. Tuf-Kat 14:18, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  14. GrazingshipIV 16:47, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  15. It is a little early, but my opinion of them, and their behaviour, is unlikely to change. Maximus Rex 05:16, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  16. Definite support! --Merovingian ↕ Talk 05:51, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Perl (he would make a great admin)
  18. Cecropia 18:29, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) I respect (and initially was swayed by) those who feel 3 months or whatever should be a minimum, but I have to support Fennec based on his record because he seems to have the makings of a fine admin.

Oppose:

  1. Too new. --Wik 00:55, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Too new. anthony
  3. At a later date, I will most probably support. It is just too soon, according to my personal gauge for this. Still too few edits. P.S. I love the birds. Kingturtle 17:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Too new, will support if nominated again in a month or so -- Graham  :) | Talk 18:54, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. Argh, once again I am hesitant. I had just looked at Fennec, thought "Hmmm, only 2 months here....I'll nominate in 3-4 weeks". 2 months is well below the guideline most of the community supports....I'll have to think about this, and am neutral in the meantime. Jwrosenzweig 00:48, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. I like the fox, but a bit too early. Dori | Talk 01:15, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Too new I think. I'll probably support later. — Jor (Talk) 15:56, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Texture 18:10, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Andrewa; (19/0) ends 02:52, 2 Apr 2004

Andrewa is active and friendly on vfd and other pages, and has roughly 2600 edits in the year that he's been here. I spotted him on Vfd making some remark about "Do I need to be an admin to see that?". Trustworthy. Meelar 02:52, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Accepted. Thank you. Andrewa 08:58, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Meelar 02:52, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Andrewa is one of the few I often see taking care of those someone-should-do-it type chores that I got too lazy for once the novelty wore off. Excellent choice, I actually thought he was a sysop already. Mkweise 03:48, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Tuf-Kat 05:46, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. Good contributor, and I think he'd make a good admin. →Raul654 09:03, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  5. I agree with Mkweise theresa knott 10:16, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:41, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. RADICALBENDER★ 13:45, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. I thought he was one already too... -- Graham  :) | Talk 15:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. GrazingshipIV 16:24, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Angela. 16:31, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  11. A very good contributor. Jwrosenzweig 16:33, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  12. Texture 16:50, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  13. Ya. Very good, helpful and active Wikipedian. Ludraman | Talk 19:12, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  14. Yup. Danny 00:43, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  15. A user whose initial experience of wikipedia was somewhat rocky, but who showed great character by transforming that experience in ways that benefited the culture of wikipedia to positive long term effect. Definitely one of the best of us. -- J-V Heiskanen 00:52, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  16. Support. He has shown good judgement. -- llywrch 02:17, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  17. No objections at all. — Jor (Talk) 15:56, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  18. Woodrow 19:19, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) - I thought he already was one. Excellent choice!
  19. Support. Fennec 17:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mkweise; (10/0) ends 22:48, 31 Mar 2004

Mkweise has been here since August 2003 and has about 900 edits. He has done a lot of good work and communicates well with others. I think he would make an excellent administrator. Cautious 22:48, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd be honored to accept...though I hope your decision to nominate me wasn't motivated by the fact that I happen to be largely on your side in a certain NPOV controversy. Also, I've been around since the autumn of 2002 (registered as mkweise since January 2003) and, while I haven't actually counted my edits, I'm sure they're a lot more than 900. Mkweise 01:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just a note, not a vote: Mkweise has over 3,100 edits to his name. Chris Roy 04:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Cautious 22:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Seaman 22:56, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
  3. Danny 04:09, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Tuf-Kat 21:17, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Moncrief 00:32, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  6. jengod 21:32, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Has made useful edits on a wide range of subjects. Happy to support Cecropia 17:28, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Kingturtle 17:48, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Decumanus | Talk 16:21, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Ludraman | Talk 19:42, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:


Comment:

  • Mkweise, I reserve any vote since I don't know you and don't think you are being involved by any dark purpose on your part. However, seeing Cautious and Seaman side by side (after the problems and questions about Seaman) would make me (were it me) reject the nomination (and surely ensure renomination at a later date.) - Texture 03:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I must agree. — Jor (Talk) 15:56, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth; (25/0) ends 14:54, 31 Mar 2004

DJ Clayworth has been here since July 2003 and has about 3,900 edits. He has done a lot of good work and communicates well with others. I think he would make an excellent administrator. Maximus Rex 14:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wow. With such a show of support, how can I decline? DJ Clayworth 21:13, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Support:

  1. Maximus Rex 14:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Rdash | Talk 15:20, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Adam Bishop 15:21, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Excellent choice. (As usual, "I thought he was one already!") Jwrosenzweig 16:34, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. moink 17:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Excellent choice. Angela. 18:53, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Stewart Adcock 20:58, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Meelar 21:55, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. jengod 01:02, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support. Seen naught but good edits. — Jor (Talk) 03:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. →Raul654 03:41, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Danny 04:09, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  13. Agreed! Hadal 21:11, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  14. Tuf-Kat 21:17, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Michael Snow 21:27, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  16. Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  17. J-V Heiskanen 22:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) (Echo Jwrosenzweig; I sometimes wonder how many "slam dunks" there still are at any time who trudge along with ordinary user rights, just waiting to be nominated... )
  18. Moncrief 00:33, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  19. theresa knott 10:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  20. Support. RADICALBENDER★ 13:45, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  21. Another one whom I'm surprised they're not already... -- Graham  :) | Talk 15:18, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  22. GrazingshipIV 16:29, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  23. Texture 16:54, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  24. Decumanus | Talk 18:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  25. BCorr|Брайен 20:32, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)


Self nominations for adminship

Please add new requests to the top

User:666

I request to be an administrator. I want to fight vandalism and ban jerks who destroy the wiki. Thank you very much, your friend 666 22:07, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Haha:

  1. Mkweise 22:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Huh?:


#§%@$/%:

Oppose:

  1. RickK | Talk 22:10, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) Oppose. Troll. RickK | Talk 22:10, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. silsor 22:12, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC) - trolling is a bannable offense. Take this as a warning.

Calmypal (1/4/0);vote ends 7:00, 4 April 2004

I've been here for about 6 months and have about 500 edits. I think that's long enough to be trusted. Time here, number of edits, and trustworthiness seem to be the only consideration in sysopping, so let the voting begin! By the way, if changing my signature often will be a problem, please tell me so. I'll (unhappily) stick with signing comments "Calmypal". - Woodrow 19:05, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Stats - circa 800 edits, been here since Nov 03. Ludraman | Talk 19:25, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. A wikipedian who knows how to use the summary box - make him a sysop quick! Ludraman | Talk 19:25, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Oppose because of the mess/edit wars that happened at MediaWiki:Uspresidents (talk). RADICALBENDER★ 19:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. User says about himself: "He is currently King of the Sovereign Nation of Paxania, a micronation contained within his own home." We don't need more of this type. --Wik 19:22, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't it be better to judge users on their contributions to articles rather than what they put on their user pages? LUDRAMAN | T 20:01, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. While it's nice to have hyperimaginitive folks such as yourself around, and I personally find your antics entertaining, I think boring people tend to make better sysops. Mkweise 19:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Not enough experience yet with the community. Kingturtle 20:02, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:


Comments:


Rebuttals:

Oppose because of the mess/edit wars that happened at MediaWiki:Uspresidents (talk). RADICALBENDER★ 19:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I knew that would come up. One argument that is now over disqualifies me forever? I'm definitely frustrated by the campaign against the Continental presidents and even the message altogether, but it's no longer a major issue. - Woodrow 19:19, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You'll notice that I never said that it would disqualify you forever. In my mind, it disqualifies you now, however. I watched the ongoing discussion and I still feel (although, I will say that Jiang is probably partially at fault) that no one ever worked to resolve that issue and that everyone, you included, were very antagonistic with each other about the whole matter. That concerns me greatly as far as "admin material" goes. RADICALBENDER★ 19:48, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I think I was acting just a tad belligerent here right now, too. Sorry. Anyway, the argument is over (?) and I think it's time to move on. - Woodrow 19:52, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User says about himself: "He is currently King of the Sovereign Nation of Paxania, a micronation contained within his own home." We don't need more of this type. --Wik 19:22, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

I hope there'll be no more confusion about my country (and its language, currently in development). Anyway, I AM calling myself a king. I AM NOT making a page about my country, mainly because its "permanent population" amounts to one. - Woodrow 19:45, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Qaz (1/2/1);vote ends 1:49, 2 April 2004)

Support:

  1. Edit history looks quite solid. 800 edits, here for 3 months. Meelar 01:49, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    That's a year and 3 months, I made the same mistake :) Dori | Talk 01:53, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Angela - Although Qaz has been here over a year, he took quite a long break between April 2003 and January 2004 and has only edited approximately 135 articles. The count Meeler gives of 800 doesn't not reflect the fact that Qaz makes multiple saves to the same page (on one occasion 20 within the same hour). I think he needs to be here longer.
  2. Not enough usage experience yet, IMHO. Kingturtle 17:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose for now. RickK | Talk 03:10, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. Neutral because I've never come across this user so can't comment on whether they'd make a good admin. However I think Angela does have a point and the number of edits shouldn't always be taken as a gospel measure. -- Graham  :) | Talk 13:39, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
After reading the guidelines and the material in other places about how the sysop is supposed to be given freely to anyone who has a history of hard work here at wikipedia and who was not a troll, I thought I would apply. Though I would not be as active as some, while I was on I knew I would be able to do good for the project which would please me as everything I have done so far for wikipedia I have enjoyed very much and I anticipated being able to be of even more service to something I believe in. Reading the votes so far and the rationale behind them though, it seems to me to be much more of a popularity contest and the work I have done is either swept aside with complaints such as he saves too much or it is stated that I am not known enough. First, about the save or preview issue... That comment was placed on my talk page about how it is better to use preview which I was not doing. I immediately responded with thanks for pointing it out to me and was very surprised when it was later used as a justification for voting against me. I did not realize you had to have no room for improvement if you dared to nominate yourself. Secondly, as for the charge that I am not known enough, anyone can look at my user page and see the list of articles I have originated or contributed to in order to see if I am serious about being here and being helpful. That is what I thought was meant by being known. I did not realize it was more about, do you have people here who share tea and crumpets with you on a regular basis. The fact is that I have worked here for much longer than even the name shows and on many more articles than 135. I nominated myself when I had passed by far the requirement to have been here for 3 months and to have enough work added to be "known" as someone who wants to be a serious contributor and helper instead of a troll. Since that does not now seem to me to be what sysop is about based on peoples reasoning behind their votes, please consider my name withdrawn from consideration. Qaz 15:56, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. This is not a declaration that I am leaving. I will continue to do what I can to improve the important work that occurs here. I just wanted to be clear about that because I did not want people to mistake this small complaint about how sysop seems to be handled as a more dramatic, "eat my shorts" or "I am taking my ball and going home" type of response. Qaz 16:02, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Levzur (1/10)

Self-nomination.

Support:

  1. Fred Bauder 23:03, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Oppose. He'd just use it to protect his POV or even ban people for casting aspersions on the memory of the great scientist, public benefactor and first president of the Republic of Georgia Dr. Zviad K. Gamsakhurdia. --Wik 05:16, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. POV vandal. RickK | Talk 05:21, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. His lack of edit comments, particularly when reverting non-vandalism edits, make me quite wary. And he seems to get in quite a few conflicts. moink 06:08, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Problems listed above, and generally unresponsive on his user talk page, where he has edited once since its inception- to remove a tidbit of criticism. Fennec 15:14, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Oppose strongly -- Graham  :) | Talk 15:20, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Repeated history of POV vandalism and refusal to accept community consensus. -- ChrisO 15:56, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Persistent vandal who doesn't seem to understand the concept of NPOV. Also, where is his self-nomination explaining why he wants to be an admin? Moncrief 20:44, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  8. I'm not aware that a statement of explanation is required, although it might be customary. But a user with this kind of reputation is unlikely to be supported without a good deal of explanation. --Michael Snow 21:57, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Like Wik said ... Danny 00:39, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Removes information he doesn't like, bordering on vandalism at times. Maximus Rex 01:09, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

Comments:

  • I should note that Levzur is currently under a 48-hour ban for a fresh outbreak of vandalism. -- ChrisO 23:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • It's an edit war, not vandalism. There are questions as to whether he should have been banned like that - rather than via quick polls. Secretlondon 23:37, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Secretlondon has a good point. The ban has been removed and a quickpoll has been proposed instead - please see Wikipedia:Quickpolls#Levzur. -- ChrisO 01:11, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Requests for bureaucratship

Please add new requests to the top

Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on other Wikipedias

See m:Interwiki requests for adminship.

Possible Misuses of Administrator Powers

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=2959069"