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 Maximus Rex (talk | contribs) at 01:34, 2 May 2004 (=MykReeve (5/2/0) ends 23:06, 8 May 2004= counting the person who nominated). 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

Here you can make a request for adminship. See Wikipedia:Administrators for what this entails and see Wikipedia:List of administrators 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 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.

MykReeve (6/2/0) ends 23:06, 8 May 2004

Dr Reeve has been around for a few months, and has contributed good articles and some very nice images. I have not checked the number of edits, but the quality may be seen in the exemplar Royal Exchange and Royal Oak (tree). -- Kaihsu 23:06, 2004 May 1 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Kaihsu 23:06, 2004 May 1 (UTC)
  2. fabiform | talk 23:20, 1 May 2004 (UTC) Myk's a good calm editor who'd make a great admin.[reply]
  3. theresa knott 00:19, 2 May 2004 (UTC) I thought he was one already[reply]
  4. Nice writings. --Menchi 00:22, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 550 edits is plenty for me, esp. when they're of quality. Meelar 00:52, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maximus Rex 01:30, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. Far too few edits, IMHO. Kingturtle 00:50, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maybe in a couple more months. RickK 00:53, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rei (4/2/1) ends 07:31, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I am nominating Rei for adminship. Though we differ politically on a number of issues, I have seen her grow in skill and patience in dealing with difficult issues, good qualities in an admin. She has been here since August of last year and created or edited quite a number of arcane subjects before taking a break, and I think Wikipedia would benefit by encouraging her to take a broader role here. Cecropia 07:31, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  1. Cecropia 07:31, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A solid contributor who has never allowed a contentious issue to afect her treatment of the article. Meelar 15:02, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —No-One Jones 20:39, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Graham  :) | Talk 23:38, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. I can not strongly enough express my opposition to Rei as an admin. TDC 20:01, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Not yet enough edits, IMHO. Kingturtle 00:48, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral:

  1. I would have opposed due to her behavior during Cecropia's nomination (when she and several others opposed Cecropia based only only his political views,) which is the only time I've come into contact with her. But since Cecropia is making the nomination, obviously he's comfortable with her, so I'll give my assent if not my support. Isomorphic 23:34, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chris 73 (8/0/0) 04:37 8 May 2004

I'd like to nominate User:Chris 73 for adminship. He's been here since October 2003, and is a very effective poster and diligent in protecting Wikipedia from vandalism. RickK 04:37, 1 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you very much for the nomination, RickK! I humbly accept. Being an Admin would greatly help me with fighting vandalism, and I hope to be a good admin. -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 05:16, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  1. RickK
  2. Maximus Rex 04:44, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dori | Talk 05:20, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Cecropia 07:33, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Angela. 08:12, May 1, 2004 (UTC)#
  6. theresa knott 15:01, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Meelar 15:03, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Graham  :) | Talk 23:39, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Richards (15/0); ends 23:41, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate Mark for adminship. In addition to rescuing me from Troll harassment, he's been doing all sorts of good cleanup work, reference desk staffing and vandal-battling since he joined up on Feb. 6. He's got nearly 2000 edits. jengod 23:41, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the nomination, and hope to be a contributor for a long time to come. Mark Richards 00:35, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. jengod
  2. Jwrosenzweig 23:50, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC) I'd been counting down the days to nominate Mark (I like to wait 3 months) and jen beats me! Mark is an excellent candidate, great demeanor and attitude, would make a very good admin.
  3. Meelar 01:45, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. I believe the extent and breadth of his contributions speak well for him. UninvitedCompany 02:14, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Angela
  6. BCorr|Брайен 03:17, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC) Support (although I'd like to see little more on the user page ;-)
  7. The guy's a little new but hey, he looks like he knows what he's doing! :o) Comrade Nick
  8. Lotsa good contribs. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 04:51, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Full support for a highly-qualified user. Moncrief 07:42, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Decumanus | Talk 12:15, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  11. H CHENEY 15:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  12. Two and a half months is plenty for an active user. Warofdreams 15:54, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  13. Michael Snow 16:09, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  14. Cribcage 22:10, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  15. Cecropia 07:39, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Rbrwr (11/0); ends 10:40, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

I would like to nominate Rob Brewer for adminship. Rob has been here since September 2002 and seems to have an excellent understanding of Wikipedia and a good approach to any talk page discussions he has been involved in. His contributions to Wikipedia include over 3000 edits to the main namespace. Angela. 10:40, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination; I accept. I must admit proclaim that of late most of my edits have been minor, but and I hope to be able to return to making more substantial contributions very soon. --rbrwrˆ 20:22, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Angela
  2. Fennec
  3. Merovingian ↕ Talk 17:23, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Warofdreams 17:25, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jwrosenzweig 22:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Danny 23:20, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. As long as he agrees not to knock minor edits ;) Meelar 04:53, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    Deal. --rbrwrˆ
  8. H CHENEY 15:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Michael Snow 16:09, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. Cribcage 22:11, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  11. Kingturtle 00:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Chancemill (12/1); ends 07:08, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A great user - should've been made admin a while ago. 172 07:08, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the nomination. It is nice to be appreciated, and I accept it with all humility. I hope to continue to deserve your faith in me, and be of good use to the project. Chancemill 12:49, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. 172 07:08, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. Chancemill has edited some contentious topics and remained calm in his discussion of them. Seems to handle conflict well. Angela 08:16, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Angela never lies. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 08:17, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
  4. BCorr|Брайен 12:14, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
  5. I especially regard it important to have admins with knowledge about topics that are not among the most common ones the mainstream user tends to contribute to. To me it seems that Chancemill's interest in Indian and Hindu topics as well as a variety of others are very valuable for wikipedia. Get-back-world-respect 19:18, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Jwrosenzweig 22:02, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. Danny 23:20, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. --H CHENEY 04:22, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC) I agree with Angela and Get-back-world-respect
  9. Excellent contributor,balanced, very friendly, sensitive, good flair for writing. KRS 14:48, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. Cribcage 22:12, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  11. john 04:23, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Meelar 01:33, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Far too few edits thus far, IMHO. Kingturtle 00:59, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:SD6-Agent (17/0/0); ends 01:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Has quietly amassed over 4000 edits since September 2003. In that time I have seen nothing but solid contributions from this editor. Has been especially productive in all areas related to Canada. - SimonP 01:18, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

SD6-Agent accepted the nomination here. --H CHENEY 04:15, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. SimonP 01:18, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Impressive contributor. Cribcage 03:50, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Fuzheado 05:17, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) - thought he/she was one already
  4. Jwrosenzweig 15:53, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) -- I've seen some very nice work.
  5. RADICALBENDER★ 16:14, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) - even if they are an agent for SD6...(at least it's not K-Directorate, I guess. ;)
  6. Tuf-Kat 17:03, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC) -- <insert witty comment here>
  7. Warofdreams 18:43, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Graham  :) | Talk 01:26, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Guanaco 01:42, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. Kingturtle 15:11, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC) What is a SD6-agent anyway? someone from the cold war? or a special chemical in a fabric softener?
  11. Exploding Boy 15:16, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Good choice, SimonP. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 18:20, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Adam Bishop 22:46, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  14. jengod 23:15, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC) Yet another "I thought (s)he was one already." I heart SD6-Agent.
  15. Danny 02:17, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  16. --H CHENEY 04:15, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC) (the only reason I waited was because I didn't know if s/he accepted)
  17. Chris 73 | (New) Talk 04:09, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

User:Catbar (11/1/3); ends 04:48, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Catbar has been here since December and has made about 800 edits. Solid contributor who deserves admin status. Meelar 04:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm pleased to be nominated - thank you, Meelar. I've found it interesting to work on the Wikipedia. I hope I can be a worthy admin. Brian Rock 05:32, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Meelar 04:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Cecropia 05:54, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) I was wondering when we were going to get the all-cat channel on WikiTV.
  3. Maximus Rex 05:57, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Tuf-Kat 06:17, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support, although 800 edits is a little weak. GrazingshipIV 06:29, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Seems like a good contributor. Cribcage 05:16, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. UninvitedCompany 17:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Looks active enough to me. Warofdreams 19:03, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Guanaco 01:47, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. Exploding Boy 15:25, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
  11. --H CHENEY 22:28, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC) Moggy made me vote support.

Oppose:

  1. Not enough experience here yet, IMHO. Kingturtle 15:12, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. Not enough edits, but I suppose a good worker. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 13:55, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Merovingian -- Graham  :) | Talk 22:47, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think that absolute number of edits is good indication of contributor activity in all cases. Some people correct typos and formatting, or don't use the preview button, and rack up a lot of edits while others perform substantial work in only a few edits. A quick look at his user page shows several pages which he has created. Also, although it is easy for experienced users to forget, 800 is still a lot of edits. Maximus Rex 23:15, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • That's why my vote is neutral and not oppose. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 18:24, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, but neutral is just a very polite way of saying "oppose" ;-). Maximus Rex 18:30, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
          • Well actually a neutral doesn't hurt. An oppose cancels out four supports. Neutrals are ok. :-) Brian Rock 22:06, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your support. I wasn't going to toot my own horn, but I am proud of the fact that several of my new articles have been featured on the Main Page: Jake and Hemotoxin are two that I know of. While I've done my share of fixing minor typos, I do prefer more extensive contributions, when I have something to offer. Brian Rock 23:39, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Danny 02:21, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Self nominations for adminship

User:Dcoetzee (12/1); ends 20:16, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate myself for adminship. I've made a large number of edits (according to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, 1364 or #340) and written several large and detailed articles almost entirely by myself (see my user page), as well as contributed many images I either created myself or obtained permission for. I recently saved lookahead from being deleted. I haven't been very active in the "politics" of Wikipedia, and have never engaged in an edit war beyond a couple exchanges; I always try to respect others' content.

I want to use admin abilities mainly to write and perform SQL queries to locate pages that need correction, to help out with deleting and reverting pages and images, to make corrections on protected and MediaWiki pages, and so on.

Thanks for your support.

Self-nomination was at 20:16, 28 Apr 2004 according to page history.

Support

  1. Merovingian ↕ Talk 21:53, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. (Unrelated note - sysops are no longer allowed to perform SQL queries). Angela. 22:41, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Maximus Rex 23:05, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Isomorphic 01:12, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Meelar 02:15, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Danny 02:16, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. Your edits are of excellent quality. --H CHENEY 05:02, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Cribcage 06:10, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Chris 73 | (New) Talk 13:27, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. Michael Snow 15:02, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  11. Comrade Nick Another A+ user!!
  12. Support, even if Plato does too. -Fennec 05:22, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Not yet enough edits, IMHO. Kingturtle 01:03, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Sysop SQL queries are disabled at present and will probably remain so for a while.--Eloquence* 01:09, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

Please add new requests at the top of this section

Other requests

Possible misuses of administrator powers

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=3412849"