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 John K (talk | contribs) at 06:57, 15 April 2004 (=Zero0000 (7/3/1); ends 21:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)=). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Communitypage

Requests for adminship are requests made for a Wikipedian to be made an administrator. These requests are made via nomination.

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. If you want to nominate another user, please notify them by leaving a message on their talk page in advance, as a courtesy. If the user wishes not to be nominated, please abide by that decision. Along with the nomination, please give some reasons as to why you think this editor would make a good administrator.
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). Other users 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. Please also give some reasons as to why you think you would make a good administrator.
Anonymous users. Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or support or oppose nominations. The absolute minimum requirement to be involved with adminship matters is to have a username in the system. This requirement has been added to prevent abuses of the system.

After a minimum 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. If there is uncertaintly, in the mind of even one bureaucrat, at least one bureaucrat should suggest an extension, so that it is clear that it is the community decision which is being implemented.

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 ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.

Please place new nominations at the top

Zero0000 (7/3/1); ends 21:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This person is a rare combination of somebody that is both well-informed on Middle-Eastern history and current events as well as takes a professional (read: unbiased and cool) attitude towards article management and discussion. These kinds of people should be cherished on Wikipedia. -- Dissident 21:29, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Dissident 21:29, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support, of course. Great editor. Danny 22:32, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. Secretlondon 22:38, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. WP need more people like him. BL 23:22, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. If people engage in edit wars with him, he can now protect the page and make the needed changes. ChrisDJackson 01:37, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    Eh, that would be a violation of policy. -- Dissident 03:31, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    In my support below, I'm assuming Zero0000 would not take ChrisDJackson's advice. Zero? Cecropia 06:52, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. No-One Jones 18:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. Zero has a hard edge that he would do well to remediate. I disagree with some of his writings, but that is not what this is about. I'm impressed with his intelligence and skill and would like to hear an expression from him that he would "count to ten" before crafting his talk responses and admin duties. So, cautiously support. Cecropia 06:48, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) (BTW, did he ever accept the nomination?)
  8. Support. john 06:57, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Too many edit wars. I feel this user is contentious. Kingturtle 21:50, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. anthony (see warning) 22:36, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. I get a bad feeling about this person. He was a very emotional and non-considerate arguer: Talk:Permutation Hfastedge 05:06, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Undecided:

  1. I question his ability to write neutrally on the Middle East. I seem to recall him reverting or deleting my contributions much more than seemed appropriate. On the other hand, my Jewish heritage might cause me to be so biased that I overlook MY OWN ability to write neutrally on that subject. --Uncle Ed 12:36, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. Has a highly specialized editing pattern and Too new. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&target=Zero0000&limit=500&offset=0 128.83.101.111
    • Anon - void. LUDRAMAN | T 01:47, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Hmmm.....I've heard good things about Zero0000, but everytime I've seen him in action, I see a user who seems to be working behind the scenes to "rally troops" and coordinate efforts in order to win edit wars/discussions. Now, I know that can happen for innocent reasons (sometimes a troll needs to be handled collectively), but it makes me nervous to see it as what I perceive to be a natural state of affairs for Zero. I'd like to see some examples of cool and calm behavior? I can see myself being convinced, but I need more than normal "great guy" comments to commit -- I'd like it if both sides pointed to instances. Thanks. :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    I haven't decided on my vote yet but isn't building a concensus what we want to happen? What has Zero done when his rally failed? Fought on his own or stepped back to accept the will of the majority? (I don't know - this is a real question) - Tεxτurε 14:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:Ww (14/0/0); ends 01:32, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ww has been here since June and has >1500 edits. He expressed some interest in adminship, so I said I'd take a look through his contributions and nominate him if I liked what I saw. He's made good contributions to articles like Attack on Pearl Harbor and pseudoscience, and has greatly improved our coverage of cryptography topics. I didn't find any disputes he's been involved in, and he was polite in the one instance I found where he disagreed with someone (See User talk:Spellbot). He probably won't use admin powers much but I think he can be trusted not to abuse them. Isomorphic 01:32, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I accept the nomination, and am shocked, just Shocked! by how fast so many people noticed it and reacted. I expect Isomorphic will be found correct in his expectation that I won't wield any awesome powers I have yet to be told about with much vigour. But, on the other hand, I only thought I'd make a few changes/improvements to the cryptography article way back when... Certainly I'll continue to keep Our Reader foremost in mind in whatever admining I actually do end up doing. I'm a little surprised much of anyone had noticed the obscure topics I've worked on, but thanks to all. Mayhap it's more a WP trait than I'd imagined. ww 20:56, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. I like what he did with the Tonkinese cat stub. Brian Rock 01:48, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Good edit history. Charles Matthews 10:21, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. I haven't come across this person myself but appears to be a good candidate -- Graham  :) | Talk 12:06, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Definitely a solid edit history. Support. Danny 12:31, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Nice work in crypto. Arvindn 12:34, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Great contribs to (at least) cryptography articles; has always been exemplarily polite and reasonable when I've had disagreements over articles with him. — Matt 16:55, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. Great crypto editor. jengod 18:09, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Decumanus | Talk 21:51, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support Cecropia 22:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. The little I've encountered Ww, I've been impressed. Good choice. Jwrosenzweig 23:38, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  11. Don't know him personally, but edit history seems good. Meelar 23:43, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  12. Solid. LUDRAMAN | T 01:49, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  13. GrazingshipIV 04:02, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Strongly support. Wikipedia's crypto section needs work, and Ww has done quite a bit of it. --Hcheney 20:01, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  15. Support. Cribcage 06:13, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:ChrisDJackson (4/16/3); ends 00:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

ChrisDJackson has been making a lot of contributions on people in politics, including Al Gore, Dan Quayle, John Kerry, etc. He has been here since December of last year and has made about 1400 edits. He definately should be nominated for adminship. --Lst27 00:29, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Even if you don't trust him, just give him a chance. I am sure that he will do really well as an administrator if you all just give him a chance. He has a lot of experience, and worked very hard to improve Wikipedia. According to his User Page, his goal on Wikipedia is to contribute fair and balanced information on issues that have meaning to him. He hopes to add the most concise and accurate information possible. He also always tries to find great pictures of famous people and people that he admires. He believes that a picture can tell a thousand things. Therefore, you will see him uploading a number of pictures to help tell the story of these famous individuals life. --Lst27 22:35, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Come on! Give him a chance!!! --Lst27 23:42, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Thanks Lst27. I have been trying to do better and work within the guidelines of Wikipedia. I have really not had any major problems here except with Anthony, which I hope people here can understand. After getting used to and taught the guidelines and rules, I have improved on things that I used to do bad such as adding sources and info on uploads. However, I am not perfect.

Anyone can see that I am not a troll or have disrupted on purpose. I am not one to revert for the simple reason of reverting. And most all the time, if I am involved in a rift, I can work a compromise out easy. I have either edited or started numerous topics, which you can see on my user page. I am a Democrat, but try to have an open and fair mind about things. Just look at the Dan Quayle page. I don't like him, but I re-wrote his article to have more content and used a NPOV stance. However, there is an ongoing dispute over which photo to use.

I believe if I have ever had a run in with a user here, I have apologized for my actions and have worked things out with them, with the exception of a few. At first, my behavior was bad. But now, users such as Kingturtle say I have improved alot. If I am entrusted with an adminship, you can rest assure that I will use my powers only for the good of Wikipedia. To make you feel even more comfortable about me as an Admin, look no further than my own website, the Al Gore Support Center. I have been an Admin there for about a year now and have done a great job! In closing, I will continue to try my best to continue to improve on my editing and behavior as I have been doing. The decision is yours, however, I am flattered just to be nominated. ChrisDJackson 02:17, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just an observation, but the person nominating, User:Lst27, has only been registered since March 28, 2004, and only has 111 edits to his/her name. That strikes me as odd, in addition to the sock puppet vote below. Fuzheado 03:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Lst27
  2. Good nomination. I support. →Raul654 02:09, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support, the user looks as though he started out rough, but has made an effort to do good and work things out. I say it is worth a try for this kid. Buford2004 02:38, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Sockpuppet? That was his 6th edit. →Raul654 02:40, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • And four of those edits were to pages in the Wikipedia: namespace, a somewhat odd pattern for a new user. Isomorphic 02:44, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. He has put in his fair share I think he at least deserves a chance. GrazingshipIV 04:21, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. You can't be serious. With his aggressive, confrontational style, and his POV attitude, and his refusal to acknowledge the existance of copyrights? Strongly oppose. Not to mention that he hasn't been here long enough. RickK 02:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Rickk this user has been here since december 2003, seems like enough time to me considering how short a time others have had. Also is having such a "confrontational" style necesarilly a bad thing considering all the trolls wikipeida has to endure. You blocked at least 4 anons today. Why not at least give him a chance? GrazingshipIV 04:32, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Hephaestos|§ 02:43, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Decumanus | Talk 03:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Danny 03:03, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Dori | Talk 03:04, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Adam Bishop 03:07, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. Fennec 03:10, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. I recall this user incessantly lying about some image on the Al Gore page, claiming he had taken it himself when in fact it was identical to a Reuters or AP copyrighted photo. This stubbornness and refusal to collaborate with others leads me to believe he would not be the best person to place in the position of an Administrator. So oppose. - Mark 03:20, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Again, this was Anthony antagonizing that. The photo was not the same one he found. I never said I took the picture. I argued that it was not the same photo. However, I later realized that it was copyrighted because it was from the AP. You have to realize this is from when I first started here. ChrisDJackson 03:27, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • OK I'll accept your clarifications there, but it definitely was a version of the same photograph. Remember I did a comparison for you? One was just darker than the other. - Mark 03:55, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. I've witnessed Chris do too many rash and irresponsible things in Wikipedia. He has exhibited a short fuse and a harsh lip. I need to see many many months of him practicing good behavior before I can endorse him. Kingturtle 06:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. Of course not. This user should be banned, not made an admin (although I'm tempted to support under the same rationale I supported wik). BTW, his idea of what it means to be an admin is: "Support. If people engage in edit wars with him, he can now protect the page and make the needed changes. ChrisDJackson 01:37, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)" anthony (see warning) 09:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  11. I was neutral until I was lobbied, because it made me believe that Chris isn't yet ready to accept the community's decisions. Perhaps in a while, but not now. -- BCorr|Брайен 02:01, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
  12. His statement in support of Zero0000's nomination, quoted already by Anthony above, shows a serious misunderstanding of our protection policy. --Michael Snow 03:26, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    I second this 128.83.133.206 05:40, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  13. Would not have voted, but I must agree with Michael Snow and Anthony that that statement is problematic. Isomorphic 03:56, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  14. Gentgeen 07:11, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  15. Mildly oppose. Caveat: the only thing that I know about this user is that he felt the need to spam my talk page with a request for a `yes' vote. — Matt 14:56, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  16. I was neutral until reviewing history. His statement supporting Zero0000 is troubling, and his user page contains an ad hominem attack. An admin should be experienced, respectful, and cooperative. Chris is not, yet. Cribcage 18:57, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. Chris seems to have improved a lot, which is awesome, but I'd like to see some more time between his rebellious teenage years and his becoming a grand old man of Wikipedia. If his improvement in behavior continues, perhaps adminship will make sense, but I don't think this is the time. jengod 04:57, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Evidence to oppose seems rather damning, though i have not seen it myself. Try agains in a few months. -- Graham  :) | Talk 12:12, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Couldn't be more neutral. In his defense, Chris has changed a lot from the person he was when he arrived here: I appreciate all he's done to adapt to the way we work here, and I think that needs commending. But on the flip side, Chris had a lot of issues when arriving here (for a few days I thought we had JoeM's counterpart), and his great strides have not yet completely resolved things for me. I still worry that Chris seeks out articles where he is most biased, thereby putting himself in the way of edit wars. I worry also about the copyright issues, which Chris still seems far too nonchalant about to me. And I will say that, while Chris is much better about avoiding disputes, I have not yet seen him be active about defusing disputes, which is an important difference -- an admin should not simply be "mostly not in trouble", but show some skill at preventing trouble (of course, Chris may be doing these things, but I haven't seen it). I believe Chris, in a month or two, would be a good choice, but at this point I am not fully comfortable supporting him. Hang in there, Chris: a couple more months should put a lot of the opposition behind you, especially if you try to address the concerns being voiced. And should the vote go Chris's way, I'll take that as a sign that my concerns have indeed been addressed, and I just haven't been around to see it happen (I haven't interacted much with Chris in the last 3-4 weeks). Jwrosenzweig 16:16, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks. As I said, I am improving but not perfect. But I haven't been into an edit war in a while. I have added alot of info to articles in a non biased way. Just look at the Quayle article. It was horrible before I fixed it up. There is no bias there. I could have mentioned how dumb he was, but I didn't. As I also have said, the only user I have had real trouble with is Anthony. But, if I don't get it this time, I will understand. And like you said, there is always next time. ChrisDJackson 20:26, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm voting Neutral here because I can't give this nomination the time it deserves right now for a fully informed opinion. I sense that ChrisDJackson has the potential to straighten up and become good admin material. I don't see any way he can overcome so many negatives, so I think it might be a great idea to give it a rest, work diligently and come back in a couple of months, and perhaps he will get a much different reception. Cecropia 03:12, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comment: I just noticed ChrisDJackson has been soliciting yes-votes for him from a whole bunch of people on their talk pages. I don't know if there's an official policy against this, but I thought I'd bring up the issue anyway (disclaimer: nothing personal against this user, haven't come across him before). Arvindn 03:52, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with asking others for support. Kingturtle 20:49, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There is, however, something wrong with spamming lots of people's talk pages asking them to support you for adminship. anthony (see warning) 23:54, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:Stevenj (11/0/0); ends 20:40 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Stevenj has been here since last February, and his 2111+ edits include many instructive, [[Laoco%F6n|delightful]], and balanced contributions. His writing demonstrates perspective and a fine sense of humor; he deals politely with iconoclasts and angle trisectors; he would make a fine admin.

I accept the nomination. I'm flattered, although I haven't felt any particular need for admin privileges to date. —Steven G. Johnson 22:34, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. +sj+ 20:42, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)
  2. Cecropia 20:51, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) His work is truly impressive, and anyone who has the patience to deal with angle trisectors without coming to blows has the perfect temperament for an admin
  3. Meelar 20:53, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Maximus Rex 00:18, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Hephaestos|§ 18:03, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Danny 18:30, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. Angela
  8. Fennec 03:12, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. jengod 05:06, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
  10. GrazingshipIV 19:28, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Merovingian ↕ Talk 13:19, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Dpbsmith (17/0); ends 04:13, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dpbsmith has been around since September and has about 2,500 edits. He writes well and acts responsibly. I think he'd make a great admin. Maximus Rex 04:13, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I accept the nomination. Dpbsmith 00:57, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Maximus Rex 04:13, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Danny 04:23, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Decumanus | Talk 04:25, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Merovingian ↕ Talk 05:30, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Meelar 20:51, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Jiang 23:51, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. BCorr|Брайен 00:15, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Michael Snow 06:09, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Graham  :) | Talk 01:38, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. Excellent choice - I should have thought to nominate him long ago. Jwrosenzweig 16:28, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  11. Stewart Adcock 17:57, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  12. Hephaestos|§ 18:03, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  13. Angela. Thought he already was one.
  14. Palapala 12:22, 2004 Apr 13 (UTC). So did I :)
  15. Great record along with opposition from anthony, your perfect :) GrazingshipIV 19:29, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Cecropia 21:59, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  17. Tεxτurε 14:10, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  18. Cribcage 06:15, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Self nominations for adminship

Please add new requests at the top of this section

User:Ryan524

Being an admin would make things a whole lot better, rather than keep reverting CoolDude's edits on Suncrest, Washington I could ban him or protect the page without finding an admin to do that, and now that it is protected I could add useful information to the page that I would otherwise have to give to an admin to add then it would take a while to add info to the stubbish article. And when CoolDude moved the page, I couldn't just use the move page feature to move it back, that page was taken an admin could but I couldn't so I had to move it back manually, which I did once, but once CoolDude moved it back It was late and manually moving it back would take too long. I feel that you shoould at least give me a chance and help keeping wikipedia a valdalism free community would just be that much esier to me, and I usualy spend a few hours on Wikipedia each day so, I could get more done in that time with the useful features avalible to admins.--Ryan524 20:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Note: When this request was made, user had 78 total previous edits under this login (since 3 April 2004). First edit was to MediaWiki:VfD-Suncrest Washington. --Michael Snow 21:23, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. Tεxτurε 21:04, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) - Admins are not allowed to edit protected pages (as you want to do) or ban people you disagree with. Your reasons do not support your request.
    I don't want to ban CoolDude because I disagree with him but because he is a vandal. And I didn't know admins couldn't edit protected pages but I could still unprotect it, change it, then reprotect it at least.--Ryan524 21:08, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    That's exactly the point. You're not allowed to use your status as an admin to "win" disputes over articles. -- Dissident 21:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    I's not a dispute its vandalism.--Ryan524 04:40, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Far, far too new. Isomorphic 22:52, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Agree 100% with Isomorphic. →Raul654 22:53, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • I may be new but wikipedia neeeds admins that are online alot and work to combat vandalism like me.
  4. Still in the "Welcome to Wikipedia" stage, and getting off to a rocky start. First edit was less than two weeks ago, suggesting another user be banned. Besides, vandalism or not, banning people is a poor reason to request admin status. Reconsider in a few months. Cribcage 06:29, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Other

  1. I don't believe this is a serious self-nomination:
    "...rather than keep reverting CoolDude's edits on Suncrest, Washington I could ban him or protect the page without finding an admin to do that.."
    "I feel that you shoould at least give me a chance and help keeping wikipedia a valdalism free community would just be that much esier to me..."

    -- BCorr|Брайен 01:24, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

User:Roozbeh

I wish to ask for adminship status, as it's a burden for me sometimes to find an admin at hand. I want the access to make two things easier for me: a) swapping the place of a redirect page and the main article, and b) reverting clear vandalism (or newbie-ism) easier. I can't find any certain reason for why I'll be a good admin, but I have good experience in Wikipedia adminship, since I started the Persian Wikipedia and have admin rights there. There, I usually follow the Recent Changes and fix everything necessary, but here I only do that for my watchlist. Roozbeh 15:18, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Stats: 700+ edits, been here since Dec 03. LUDRAMAN | T 01:55, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Hemayat kardan (support). Danny 16:23, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. BL 13:52, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Tεxτurε 14:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Give him a chance.--Ryan524 20:56, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Reviewed edit history, liked what I saw. Seems like a good candidate. Cribcage 06:33, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. We need more sysops from the Axis of Evil. --Wik 06:53, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

I object to this person's gain of admin status for the following reason. In the Persian Wikipedia where he is the ONLY admin, he has consistently demonstrated a mentality of dictatorship and immediate banning of others who do not submit to his personal taste on matters. As an exmple, the word he has chosen for "Encyclopaedia" in Persian Wikipedia, is an old, 100% Arabic, and stupidly ostentatious word for encyclopaedia, lingering from the old times where showing off Arabic knowledge was sadly a common practice among the learned in Iran. At least 4 people asked him to please change the word (the word is so stupid that even Arabs themselves don't use this pompous word) and he simply refuses to respect other people's wishes. This is just one example. Every time someone makes a change to a page that he personally does not like, he reverts, and is quick to ban people. He banned me when I protested to him why he was altering my posts in a discussion area. He has also said (and I quote directly from his own post) "Wikipedia is not a democracy", yet in the same posting where a number of people had protested to his choice of Arabic words, he said let's vote on this. Yet, he didn't hold any voting process; and yet, he says that Wikipedia is not a democracy. So if Wikipedia is not a democracy, why vote? And how can others who like to participate get past such petty dictators? - 69.111.53.180, 14 April 2004

I suppose anonymous contributors don't have a vote here, but there are valid objections that I need to answer about the Persian wikipedia. My exact words "Wikipedia is not a democracy" was taken from the Polling guidelines page, and I mentioned we need a consensus or at least we need to have a proper poll. I guess it's apparent that it's not me that's required to hold a poll on the Persian wikipedia, everybody can start a poll. (That said, my count of users registered on the Persian wikipedia for or against the change the above user is asking for, was 1 for the change, and 2 against it. There is definitely no consensus.)
I have also asked on the Persian Wikipedia for other sysop candidates, and on the meta for bureaucrat status on the Persian wikipedia [1], so I can get rid of these kinds of annoying situations where people blame me personally for enforcing a policy of wikipedia's.
I also wish to add that the certain guy who has posted the previous comment is currently the only banned IP address on the Persian wikipedia, for continued harsh personal attacks and abuse even after being referred to the No_personal_attacks page ("You sh**-eater wish to discuss things with me?", "Do you have some sickness or what?", "You are so dishonest and stupid that..."). The "altering of my posts in a discussion area" he is referring to, were me censuring words like "sh**", or removing sentences like the above examples which had no factual value.
I have also never reverted this person's contributions, I have only reverted his "reverts" which were losing valuable edits (pronounciation guides for a poem and NPOVization). I wish to ask for an example of a single case where I have reverted a contribution by him or anyone else on the Persian Wikipedia. Roozbeh 13:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If everybody takes a quick look at the history of Tehran page you will see a good example of what I mean about this person. Besides the fact that the English Wikipedia is not a place to interject Persian or Arabic words in articles, he also includes wrong information, and when corrected, stubbornly insists on imposing his personal taste like an obnoxious little child. This is NOT the type of behaviour that an admin should have. His affliction is so severe that he could not even help restraining himself while his self-nomination for adminship is pending. - 69.111.53.180, 14 April 2004

I believe this is proof enough that the anonymous user above is in for a personal vandetta against me. My case on Tehran is definitely backed by many sources, as I just explained on Talk:Tehran. As of interjecting original spelling of the words in the original languages, I wish to bring the attention to articles like China, Muammar al-Qaddafi, or Duma, all of which contain original spellings. I definitely won't let my adminship request get in the way of me contributing facts to Wikipedia. Even if the request gets rejected, I will continue to behave the same way I have been behaving, specially for articles related to Iran, since I live in Iran, and I have valuable factual resources at my hand. Anyway, I'm getting tired of following this certain user's contributions and fixing his mangling or removal of information (or, ah, signing his posts for him). Roozbeh 22:58, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • You make a good case for self-nomination. Can I ask for an example of where you have needed to swap the article and redirect and not found an admin? Was there support for this action or was it independent on your part? - Tεxτurε 16:11, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • It was independent on my part. But nobody had objected, or objected to the idea after I moved the page the non-sysop way (losing some history and all). It was for the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi article, which I did the wrong technical thing after all, and got a ticket. It wouldn't have happened if I had admin access. Roozbeh 13:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Reverting newbie-ism? Not really a good thing. Newbie contributions should be fixed if faulty, not reverted. LUDRAMAN | T 01:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • By newbie-ism I meant cases like somebody testing Wikipedia to see if he can add his name at the middle of the article, or remove the whole contents, to see if Wikipedia really does what it claims to. Like my recent revert of the Omar Khayyam article. Roozbeh 13:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

Please add new requests at the top of this section

Other requests

Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on other Wikimedia projects can be made at m:Requests for permissions.

Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta can be made at m:Administrator.
Current policy states that any sysop on any wikipedia can become a sysop automatically on meta. This policy is currently disputed. See m:Talk:Administrator

Requests to mark a user as a bot can be made at m:Requests for permissions following approval by a sysop at wikipedia talk:bots.

Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.

Possible misuses of administrator powers

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=3195232"