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 Get-back-world-respect (talk | contribs) at 15:53, 7 May 2004 (=User:Rei (14/5/3) ends 07:31, 8 May 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

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. It is expected that nominees will have good familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures.

Nomination. Most users become administrators by being nominated by another user. Before nominating someone, get permission from them. Your nomination should be indicative that you believe that the user meets the requirements and would be an exemplary administrator. Along with the nomination, please give some reasons as to why you think this editor would make a good administrator.
Self-nomination. If you wish to become an administrator, you can ask someone to nominate you. Self-nominations are accepted, however. If you want to nominate yourself to become an administrator, it is recommended that you wait until you exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure,.
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.

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.

User:Jfdwolff (13/1/1)

He has made about 2000 (I believe) edits, many on medicinal topics, and has shown himself to be a conscientious and good contributor. Meelar 23:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honoured to accept.
JFW | T@lk 23:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  1. Meelar
  2. Jwrosenzweig 23:27, 3 May 2004 (UTC) (Man, nominations are coming out of the woodwork -- is this an unusual trend, or just a sign that we're finally recognizing that many, many editors do outstanding work here -- Jfdwolff not least of them! -- and we're too slow to respond?)[reply]
  3. Support. He's done some great work organising the Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine. Angela. 23:34, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Bummer, I wanted to nominate him myself. Support. Danny 23:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tuf-Kat 00:05, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
  6. 172 02:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cecropia 02:19, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cribcage 03:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GrazingshipIV 03:35, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Warofdreams 18:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  11. User:Zanimum
  12. Graham  :) | Talk 23:05, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  13. PFHLai 14:31, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Not enough edits yet, IMHO. Therefore, not enough experience yet, IMHO. Kingturtle 01:10, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral:

  1. Never heard of em. anthony (see warning)
    Take the time to review Jfdwolff's edit history. Kingturtle 00:24, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:Everyking (17/1/0) Ends 22:46, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Another user who should've been made admin a while ago. 172 22:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Information only: Everyking, according to my count, has 5,200+ edits since beginning here in mid-February, 2004. Jwrosenzweig 22:52, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I accept. Everyking 23:07, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. 172 22:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Danny 22:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cyrius|&#9998 22:56, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 23:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Meelar 23:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tuf-Kat 00:05, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Cribcage 03:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kingturtle 03:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GrazingshipIV 03:39, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
  10. theresa knott 17:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Very active. Support. Warofdreams 18:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Extreme inclusionist, voting on VfD almost like myself. anthony (see warning)
  13. Support enthusiastically. Mostly I've see him on VfD voting to keep things I'd rather see deleted. However, a look the links on his user page shows him filling important gaps with good articles, especially on African politcs. Isomorphic 05:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Aside from Jfdwolff, he's the only editor I've heard of, currently on this list. I think that counts for a lot. -- user:zanimum
  15. Inclusionism aside (there are far worse out there) he would make a very good admin -- Graham  :) | Talk 23:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Sysopship doesn't affect your VfD vote. Besides, you know any admins who have gotten in trouble for not deleting something? :) - Fennec 05:10, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Infrogmation 05:59, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Rhymeless 06:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Extreme inclusionist, voting on VfD almost like Anthony. --Wik 07:25, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
How would that make him a bad admin? theresa knott 17:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sign of bad judgment. --Wik 18:21, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm I tend to disagree, but no matter. The important question is IMO do you think he is likely to abuse admin power? In other words, have you ever seen him engage in dodgy behaviour such as deleting other people's comments, being abusive to people he doesn't agree with, getting involved in edit wars, that kind of thing? theresa knott 20:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I never saw him being involved in any content dispute, so I can't say that he behaved either good or bad there, except the matter of the inclusion of 9/11 victims, where he accused people who considered those articles unencyclopedic as being "politically motivated", refused to accept the general consensus of not including those articles and instead insisted on having a vote on each of them individually. --Wik 21:52, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I have more recently done some editing on the 9/11 wiki myself, and I don't intend to participate any further in those votes, although I do still think they should be put to individual votes. I agree that the consensus on the matter is plain. Everyking 21:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Jmabel (18/0) ends 18:41, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel has been around since October 2003 and has about 3,500 edits. He has done a lot of nice work, including many translations (which anyone who has tried will tell you is no easy task to do well). I think he'd be a good admin. Maximus Rex 18:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm honored, but I'm not sure I want this. Could someone get in touch with me & clarify for me what it means? I'm pretty much happy with the role I've already carved out here... BTW, Jengod, I'm not a "she", Mabel is my surname. High school was hell on that count... -- Jmabel 22:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, Jwrosenzweig has convinced me that if I'm assigned this and don't much use it, no one will be bothered. On that basis, sure, if there is consensus. -- Jmabel 23:55, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  1. Maximus Rex 18:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Angela. 19:32, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  3. "Thought she already was one." jengod 20:09, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Goodness, yes! Jmabel's work on Wikipedia:Translation into English alone (both setting it up and doing translations) is worthy of a barnstar. Ashamed I didn't think to check if he was an admin. Jwrosenzweig 20:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Meelar 20:26, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Danny 22:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Tuf-Kat 00:05, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
  8. What jengod said. Markalexander100 02:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cribcage 03:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  10. A qualified contributor who doesn't really want to use admin abilities, especially blocking, is all the easier to support. --Michael Snow 17:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No need to use those abilities, but I'm sure you'll find them useful on occasion. Support. Warofdreams 18:33, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  12. john 20:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC) support[reply]
  13. Great editor. Support. →Raul654 23:06, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
  14. GrazingshipIV 00:47, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Stewart Adcock 03:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  16. A talented and diplomatic polymath -- Viajero 19:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Itai 21:48, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Kingturtle 00:59, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:David.Monniaux (17/0/0); ends 18:53, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Don't know for sure if he fits the basic requirements in terms of contributions, but I really think so. He has been here a long time. Otherwise, I see no evidence he would be a bad sysop :-); I like his contributions; he is timid so won't do self-nomination :-); and finally I love the idea of french people on en: SweetLittleFluffyThing

I do accept the nomination, thanks. :-) David.Monniaux 07:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

ah tout de même ! :-) ant

Support:

  1. About 2500 edits, btw. Meelar 17:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. john 19:26, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Angela.
  4. BCorr|Брайен 00:31, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Sam Spade 00:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC) Reading antheres nomination, I feel a need to point out that my vote is based only on DM's polite, insightful, educated demeanor, and has no basis in francophilia of any sort ;)[reply]
  6. Decumanus | Talk 02:11, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Guanaco 04:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SweetLittleFluffyThing 04:42, 3 May 2004 (UTC) (sigh, bureaucracy....)[reply]
  9. Charles Matthews 08:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  10. olivier 09:46, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Excellent choice; intelligent and fair editor. Jwrosenzweig 16:09, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  12. jengod 20:27, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Danny 22:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 172 02:04, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Cribcage 03:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  16. There you go! -- Cecropia 13:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Michael Snow 20:56, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Neutral:

User:Markalexander100 (8/1); ends 08:44, 9 May

A diligent copyeditor and writer - he'll make a superb admin 172 08:43, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd be happy to accept. Markalexander100 02:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. 172 08:44, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Looks good. Infrogmation 15:20, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Danny 15:58, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jiang 04:14, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Guanaco 04:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jengod 20:45, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Cribcage 03:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Chancemill 14:02, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Beat me to it! +sj+ 22:50, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Far too few edits thus far. Kingturtle 00:49, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral:

Cyrius (16/0/0); ends 5:57, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Cyrius has done an enormous amount of Wikipedia maintenance as well as being (to my knowledge) trustworthy and reasonable—an expanded user page would help in this regard. He has made ~3,500 edits since 24 December 2003. Chris Roy 05:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks, I accept the nomination. -- Cyrius|&#9998 14:33, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Chris Roy 05:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Meelar 05:58, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Everyking 06:10, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. He's done plenty of good maintainance work. I strongly support anyone willing to do that stuff on a regular basis. ;-) Isomorphic 06:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kingturtle 08:12, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cecropia 13:37, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Danny 16:00, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Angela
  9. I know it's a cliche, but I thought he was one. Support. Cribcage 17:20, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Graham  :) | Talk 21:48, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Guanaco 04:39, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Michael Snow 16:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 172 22:56, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Very active. Support. Warofdreams 18:31, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  15. GrazingshipIV 00:52, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Maximus Rex 03:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Rhymeless 06:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Neutral:

Other:

  1. Support if he writes something more substantial that "Just some guy." on his user page and specifies an email address in his user preferences. Maximus Rex 18:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:AlainV (7/1/0); ends 9 May, 2004, 4:00 (UTC)

AlainV has been here since last October, and has made about 1000 edits. A good contributor with good writing skills. Meelar 04:00, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I accept the nomination. AlainV 06:49, 2004 May 2 (UTC)


Support:

  1. Meelar 04:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Guanaco 04:40, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cecropia 04:49, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very good choice - glad he accepted. Jwrosenzweig 16:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Michael Snow 16:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jengod 20:23, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Cribcage 03:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I believe AlainV's careful, detailed, fact-based edits to truly encyclopedic articles are uncommonly valuable. UninvitedCompany 15:42, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. Far to few edits thus far. Kingturtle 00:47, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral:

User:Romanm (7/4/0) ends 01:56, 9 May 2004

RomanM has a lot of experience in Wikipedia and has made really good contributions, about 1700 since October 2003. --Lst27 01:56, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those words. Of course I accept the nomination. I'm already one of the administrators of Slovene Wikipedia, so the concept is not new to me. --Romanm 05:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  1. User:Lst27
  2. See comment below. Guanaco 04:50, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dori | Talk 14:04, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. User:GeneralPatton Seems like a good contributor.
  5. One edit war--on a small scale at that--shouldn't disqualify someone. Meelar 20:28, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, particularly after seeing the nature of the so-called "edit war" at Milan Kucan and Janez Drnovsek. - Fennec 13:22, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Warofdreams 18:29, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. Avala - Not neutral, denying facts
  2. Far too few edits thus far. Furthermore, many of the edits are minor changes. Kingturtle 00:45, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Excellent disambig and interlang work; we need more of it! And shows great patience in dealing with Avala. But I agree with KT, too few real edits, not that much interaction with articles or other en: editors (wasn't really active until Feb); could use another month or so, or a more illustrative record. +sj+ 09:26, 2004 May 7 (UTC)
  4. Repectfully oppose. This is demonstrative of the uncomfortable position that User:Lst27 creates through inappropriate nominations. User:Romanm is indeed a good, valuable contributor, and the disambiguation work and interlangauge links are a valid contribution. However, administrative matters are handled quite differently on wikis of various languages and I see too little community engagement here at en:. The lack of more substantive edits also gives me too little information to make an informed decision. I do appreciate User:Romanm's excellent work and hope it will continue. UninvitedCompany 15:45, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral:

Comments:

  • I thought I should point out Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#Romanm. I'm not saying there is necessarily any substance to the complaints, but I think Romanm should at least address the concerns on that page before becoming an admin. Angela. 15:57, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Unaware of this--neutral until explanation is given. My fault for not checking history thoroughly enough. Meelar 19:16, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was not vandalism. It was a minor revert war (2 edits each per article) explained on Talk:Janez_Drnovsek, involving Romanm and Avala. Avala overreacted and posted a complaint on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#Romanm. Guanaco 04:50, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it wasn't vandalism, but I'm not sure that Avala was in the wrong. In any case, while third-party views are helpful, I'd like to hear directly from Romanm. Cribcage 06:39, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see Talk:Janez_Drnovsek. In short: apparently four political parties in Serbia made up that Slovenians killed 40 unarmed yugoslav soldiers during the independence war and decided to sue both of Slovenian presidents for it. It didn't bother them that Drnovsek was not in commanding structure of the Slovenian Army at that time (he became premier in 1992 and president in 2002). The "news" about those political parties going to court was published in Serbian newspaper Blic, but it seems that even it editors didn't think much of it since it was published among car accidents and catching drug dealers chronicle. Somehow Avala thought that this news deserves to be on pages about Janez Drnovsek and Milan Kucan and pasted it there, but I disagreed and reverted the article twice. This is what I have to say about this. --Romanm 13:50, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • The supposed charges aren’t getting a lot of attention even within Serbia, and it should be noted that Blic is a sensationalist, tabloid newspaper. --GeneralPatton 20:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Meelar that one edit war shouldn't disqualify someone from becoming an admin. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to require some distance between that edit war and the user's promotion. Cribcage 03:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm uncertain that any number of edit wars should disqualify someone from becoming an admin. Edit wars are frequently required when people who are more interested in advancing political POV than in building an encyclopedia take hold of an article. Romanm was good about posting reasons on talk pages, and was calm and rational about the process. I have no objection to someone playing hardball against a troll. Frankly, letting idiocy stand in articles is far more harmful to Wikipedia. Also, it should be noted that Avala's first edit was March 11th, which is not three months ago. If I recall correctly, one must edit for three months before one can vote here, no? Snowspinner 00:48, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry GeneralPatton but Blic is not asensationalist, tabloid newspaper. It was the only newspaper that was not under Milosevic power. It is owned by Germans today. Romanm nobody madeup that shooting. That happened and Slovenians maybe don`t admit it. Stop denying masacres . I am not denying that some Serbian-Milosevic para-military forces were killing Bosniaks.

I think that Romanm shouldn`t be administrator because he is editing articles in the way they show Slovenia as the best country with no faults. He is like a judge while he is fanatical rooter of other team. He is not neutral at all! He is denying facts! --Avala 10:48, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Janez Drnovsek for my side of the medal. --Romanm 11:41, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Your side of the medal has traces of innocent blood on it! Mentioning Bozo the Clown in shooting discussion is more than disgusting!

Shame on you! Avala 11:52, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

MykReeve (22/2) 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)

I'm pleased and flattered to accept the nomination. Thanks! - MykReeve 18:54, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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]
  7. A review shows generally calm and composed behavior while working on the alternative medicine articles. Isomorphic 02:20, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Contributor since December 14, 2003. I'm not concerned with frequency or number of edits: He's been around awhile, and he produces quality work. I support 100%. Cribcage 03:02, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Much excellence. Seth Ilys 05:56, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Angela
  11. Calm and thoughful. BCorr|Брайен 11:27, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Danny 16:00, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Wikipedia is not an exclusive country club: adminship should be granted based on qualitative performance, not quantitative, IMHO. --"DICK" CHENEY 19:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Guanaco 19:32, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Stewart Adcock 00:29, 3 May 2004 (UTC) More than enough edits for me to conclude that he'd make a trustworthy admin.[reply]
  16. I don't know what 200-300 more edits would tell me that the excellent 500+ haven't already -- there's been plenty of time for Myk to get into trouble if that was coming. Does very solid work, in my experience. Jwrosenzweig 16:10, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  17. His work so far is good enough evidence of qualifications. Let's not set our edit count expectations so high that people have to make Wikipedia a full-time job for six months to become admin. --Michael Snow 16:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Supersolid, involved contributions. Good choice. jengod 20:07, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  19. 172 22:58, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. User has ~= 650 edits. He takes pictures, too! :) - Fennec 13:26, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
  21. Support. →Raul654 23:06, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Gaz 14:35, 5 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

User:Rei (14/5/3) 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]

I accept. I am especially glad to see Cecropia offer the nomination. Thank you, Cecropia. If accepted, I will try to do the position justice, and will read over the guidelines again thoroughly if accepted. As I was not expecting this nomination, I would only use admin powers upon request of other users in conflicts that I have not personally been involved in. If anyone has any questions or suggestions, please feel free to get in touch with me. --Rei

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]
  5. AndyL 07:24, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wikipedia is not an exclusive country club: adminship should be granted based on qualitative performance, not quantitative, IMHO. --"DICK" CHENEY 19:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  7. pir 10:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC) Wholeheartedly support her nomination, Wikipedia and Wikipedians will benefit.[reply]
  8. Changing my vote from neutral after discussion on Rei's talk page. I think she'll be fine. Isomorphic 23:59, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  9. After careful review, I support. Cribcage 03:10, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I have faith that the user can be trusted to refrain from using administrative powers in a controversy. - Fennec 13:04, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support. Mdchachi|Talk 13:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Cecropia and Rei should balance each other nicely. ;) Markalexander100 01:30, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Fredrik 17:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  14. GrazingshipIV 09:29, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. I can not strongly enough express my opposition to Rei as an admin. TDC 20:01, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
    You're certainly not compelled to explain your vote -- but a remark like that leaves a question hanging in the air. If you chose to elaborate, people could judge whether they agree with your objection. Cribcage 05:43, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that Rei will be prone to abuse her admin powers in articles she is personaly involved in Oil For Food, and that is why I oppose her nomination.TDC 16:23, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
    TDC, cam you show any particular example of misbehaviour by Rei? I can show several of yours, you are even listed as a vandal. Get-back-world-respect 20:29, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    That means next to nothing, as anyone can list anyone as a vandal. In this instance it was done by the non-credible 172. -- VV 00:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    172 is an admin and we provided evidence of vandalism. Get-back-world-respect 18:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism pertains to articles, not talk pages (appelative removed), if that were the case 172 would have been banned long long time ago. TDC 18:46, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
    As you know very well and as can be verified at your vandal listing you did not restrict your misbehaviour to talk pages. And at any rate, comments like "suck your own dick" and "only limp-dicked historians doubt my opinion" are unacceptable wherever you make them. You still failed to show any particular edit of Rei you regard as inappropriate. Get-back-world-respect 02:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    Urg, the only reason I am listed in the vandal section is because you put me there (appelative removed). You are fabricating your own evidence. TDC 02:34, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
    I have removed personal attacks from this listing. You are not helping your cause. - Fennec 14:37, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
    I did not list TDC as a vandal, he was already listed. I only added evidence of his vandalism. And he still failed to show any particular edit of Rei he regards as inappropriate. Get-back-world-respect 22:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not yet enough edits, IMHO. Kingturtle 00:48, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Respectfully oppose. I think that Rei is a well-intentioned user, but she's not ready for admin status. This should be of major concern. 1 Her edit summary here was, "Vote being taken on the talk page. Protecting until then." However, this would be more disconcerting had she been an admin to begin with, given that it was an attempt by her to prevent changes to an article on which she was actively editing. I also question her understanding of how an encyclopedia is supposed to be organized. She misunderstood my arguments here consistently on 2. 172 01:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned on your talk page, I had at that point not read over the guidelines for page protection, which I did immediately after you commented, and I apologized to you. As for not understanding your arguments, I respectfully have to disagree. You decided to rearrange a page against the wishes of several users on the page, and reverted the very edits that were attempting to resolve your problems because you didn't look at what changes were made before reverts. If you would like to continue the discussion about the page, it is still open over there. --Rei
    I wasn't saying that the "page protection" was anything more than an honest mistake. I think that it can be read as a sign that perhaps more time is needed to learn the ropes. 172 21:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I was reserving judgment until I saw how things played out during the ad hoc mediation/revision attempt at Oil for food, but after Rei's posting today on the talk page I have to oppose for similar reasons as 172. BCorr|Брайен 00:34, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
    Can you explain that? I am puzzled that she claims not to have seen the revision page but I cannot see anything wrong with what she wrote on talk. Get-back-world-respect 02:08, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Respectfully oppose. Seeing as how there's no clear consensus, I read through Rei, TDC, and Cecrophia's edit history to try to get a sense of what's going on. I haven't encountered Rei before except seeing a brief edit of hers at the D9 cat page. Upon reviewing the edit history, I am concerned. While Rei has a number of excellent edits, the most valuable of which are on mushroom-related topics, most of her recent edits have been at politically charged current-events articles, such as Oil for food, George W. Bush, Israel, and various Iraq-related topics. These articles offer an editing experience that is quite outside the mainstream of Wikipedia. And since Rei has only been active since January 20 (plus a one-month period in August 2003 and a handful of edits in between), I question whether she has had the opportunity to internalize the Wikipedia "way of doing things." I would hope that she would be nominated again after she gains more experience with the project. UninvitedCompany 22:48, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Without Rei the Oil for food page would be the personal allegation page of vandal TDC. Get-back-world-respect 23:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral:

  • I would have opposed due to her behavior during Cecropia's nomination (when she and several others opposed Cecropia based only on 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]
We did not oppose Cecropia because of his political views but because of his misbehaviour, shown by a specific example. I however have to admit that when doing this I had not really informed myself enough about what adminship means and to whom it should be granted. And while Cecropia and I continue to sicken each other - at least I guess I also sicken him sometimes - I point out that the only thing close to misbehaviour I have seen from him since was quickly dealt with. Our latest abuses consist of chatting on talk pages, which can also be done without admin rights... Get-back-world-respect 20:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
That edit is not "misbehavior" just because you disagree with it. I will ask Rei's opinion on this. The ability to distinguish misbehavior from disgreement is important for an admin. Isomorphic 21:15, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is misbehaviour, and not because I disagree with it but because it is obviously partisan and has nothing to do with a biography of George W. Bush. I explained it in more detail to Cecropia on my talk page. Get-back-world-respect 18:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The reason others don't understand that it's misbehavior is because they don't understand the rules of GBWR-world. ;-) -- Cecropia 13:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
It does not surprise me that you get personal rather than give any argument supporting your position. "Others don't understand it" is not quite correct, you had many opponents of your nomination and did not even get 80%. Get-back-world-respect 22:36, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can see the complete history of that in the archives and talk archives (including what others said) and make their own judgments. Perhaps you should self-nominate for admin, so you can show me up by getting more than 80%. -- Cecropia 20:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think a reason why self-nomination should exist. If someone is capable of being a good admin someone else will find out and nominate. I have only been here for a short time, and I do not think with my user name and user page I could get a majority. But I do not want to change either of them as long George W. Bush is president of the US. I however insist that I have never done anything close to your misbehaviour in the example I pointed out, and it does not surprise me that again you get personal rather than apologize for that you already did it last time. Get-back-world-respect 23:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
GBWR: Well, obviously you never get personal. You made opposing my adminship a crusade, you solicited opinion on my adminship on the talk pages of other users, you questioned a couple of users as to why they voted for me, and you have made charge after charge about me. When people who didn't know me reviewed my record they often disagreed with you in detail. And you want an apology. You carry your battles everywhere, as you are doing now. A comparison between you and Rei (this is supposed to be about her nomination, not your dislike of me, remember?) is that you are both intelligent, and capable of good edits. I nominated her because, in watching her work, I saw her working on understanding the rules and culture of Wikipedia and maturing in her skills. But you seem to be staying exactly the same no matter what other users (besides me) say to you. You ridiculed that I "did not even get 80%". I got 36 supports to 10 opposes. You don't want to "self-nominate"? Well, I won't nominate you because I would only nominate people who I think would be good admins, as Rei. But maybe one of the other people who opposed me would nominate you. If so, I'll give you a simple challenge. If you get HALF the positive votes I got (meaning 18) and achieve adminship with 80% or more of your vote, I will resign my adminship and abandon my account. If I choose to return to Wikipedia as an editor I will start with a new username and no edits, and start the road to adminship again, if anyone were to choose to nominate me again. If I see someone propose you before the end of May (because I keep my word but don't make open-ended offers) the deal is on. -- Cecropia 00:57, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
It is not personal to oppose an adminship nomination based on an example of misbehaviour. I already explained why I did it and that I would not do it again in the same way. I also explained why I do not believe in self-nominations and why I would not accept a nomination as long as George W. Bush is president of the US. As you rightly note, this is about Rei's nomination, not personal defiances. You keep writing off-topic and still have not shown anything to counter my claim. Get-back-world-respect 15:53, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I think Rei will make a fine admin and hope she works on some non-controversial topics and is nominated again in a few weeks. +sj+ 09:16, 2004 May 7 (UTC)
  2. VV 01:58, 3 May 2004 (UTC) I had difficulties with Rei earlier on, but our more recent interaction was more agreeable. That could be luck though; without more experience I can't say (as Cecropia does) whether Rei has gotten "more into the groove" of Wikipedia or not. So, not opposing or supporting at this juncture.[reply]
  3. A few valid concerns have been raised. Guanaco 04:56, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think the instance 172 highlights is enough to make me wary. Whoever was in the right in that edit conflict, putting a page protection notice on an unprotected page that you are in the process of an edit war on is just bad form. I'd want to see some explanation/apology for that before I support. john 07:14, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    She explained and apologized, see above. Get-back-world-respect 20:31, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, I think that she's a well-meaning user, and that this was probably a benign confusion more than anything else. I just said that it's a sign that she may need more time to learn the ropes, that's all. 172 21:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • If she promises to start using four tildes when signing her name I will switch my vote to support. It's so annoying when people don't date their talk entries. ;-) -- Mdchachi|Talk 21:02, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I will!  :) -- Rei 21:44, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just about to change my vote when I noticed that you let the Daily Mirror photos into the Iraq Human Rights article. That, to me, shows a serious lack of critical thinking. The source of the photos and the discrepancies within the photos themselves show that they are likely to be fake. Telling the truth is one thing but perpetrating hoaxes that may incite hatred and get people killed is another. :-( Mdchachi|Talk 21:51, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    I supported the removal of the pictures. Check the history. I didn't do it myself, but I only saw the page one time during that time period, and since the pictures are still being disputed, I decided not to get involved at that point. My main concern was to provide a link (I don't think we should be directly putting in pictures that contain nudity, since the site should be safe for work) to the photos that are generally accepted as authentic. -- Rei 20:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm changing my vote since I promised; although my last concern still stands, I think that on balance Rei is likely to use admin power conscientiously. Mdchachi|Talk 13:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chris 73 (14/0/1) 04:37 8 May 2004 (UTC)

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]
  9. Danny 16:00, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Decumanus | Talk 01:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Guanaco 04:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  12. pir 10:26, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Michael Snow 16:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  14. jengod 20:24, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Warofdreams 18:25, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Neutral:

  1. This objection removed by the poster - see below.

Olive The artist formerly known as 195.188.152.16

User Chris 73 has alleged Made a number of edits to musician sites, mainly adding a link to [5] and subpages, and removing some probably valid information from the pages.
This is a serious allegation of removing some probably valid information. He should substantiate it.
I do admit (stupidly and I regret) replacing modemacs page after he reversed all the edits that I had taken a long while (and carefully) to add, which are informative and useful, and which are not in violation of any wiki-pedia guidelines that I can discover.
My contributions also cover several topics (as anyone can check).
He is unsuitable for admission until he substantiates his words, and until he stops taking a God-like approach to other caring contributors.
He caught no vandal !
Please be aware User:195.188.152.16 that anons don't have the right to vote in this debate, neither do people who don't sign their comments. -- Graham  :) | Talk 12:55, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Validated by Olive
Snippet from Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress:
Made a number of edits to musician sites, mainly adding a link to [1] and subpages, and removing some probably valid information from the pages. Now he is vandalizing the page of User:Modemac, who reverted his edits. His contributions:195.188.152.16 -- chris_73 01:38, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
End of Snippet
Adding links is no vandalism. Your actions on the page of User:Modemac was. Back then your actions were vandalism, and you got banned for a short period (not by me, I just alerted others to your actions). I see that you apologized to Modemac, and got a login as User:Olive. I think this is the right thing to do, and is promising for your future contributions. I'll contact you directoy on your talk page soon. -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 14:49, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
My relationship with User:Olive is improving. Details on User talk:Chris 73 -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 15:39, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Olive concurs and removes objection after reasonable consultation. If Modemac had taken more consultative approach this would not have started.
Please sign your comments (by typing four tildes, like ~~~~). It makes conversations easier to follow. Also, at the risk of sounding impolite: Try using short, complete sentences, and pay attention to your pronouns. I try not to criticize folks' writing, but I've honestly had difficulty understanding this thread. Thanks. Cribcage 17:43, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Self nominations for adminship

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=3486393"