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 Jiang (talk | contribs) at 07:12, 20 May 2004 (=User:Jerzy (6/0/0)=). 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. The quality and quantity of a nominee's work here is also a factor. Many Wikipedians take into account the number of edits a candidate has made, as a rough indication of how active the candidate has been. There are no hard guidelines on this, but most users seem to expect between 500 and 1000 edits before they will seriously consider a nomination.

Nominations which are obviously unqualified (those with fewer than 100 edits, for example) may be removed before the voting is complete. Past votes shows that the great majority of Wikipedians will not support such nominations, so they have no chance of success. Nominations may also be removed early if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship.

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:Jerzy (6/0/0), ends 00:36, 27 May

Jerzy has made 5000+ edits since September 2003. In addition to many fine edits, he has in the past been involved with organizing votes for deletion and cleanup and I believe he will put his powers to good use. --Jiang 00:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting acceptance from Jerzy of nomination.

Support

  1. Jiang 00:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems to have a good understanding of Wikipedia. Angela. 00:58, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Tεxτurε 02:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jengod 03:25, May 20, 2004 (UTC) Meep.
  5. Fuzheado 03:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC) - thought was already one.[reply]
  6. Fair, even-minded. Interesting in custodial activities. Kingturtle 06:04, 20 May 2004 (UTC)~[reply]
  7. Rhymeless 07:08, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:Colipon(1/4/2) 18:38, 26 May 2004

A professional academic, one of the site's best users, a fairly active user since 8/03, and an excellent contributor to the site's China-related articles (among the strongest topics on Wikipedia) 172 18:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting acceptance from Colinpon of nomination.

Support

  1. 172 18:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Good and promising editor, not but ready yet, IMO. Many breaks of weeks or longer in editing, and many of the 700 edits are from failure to Preview or mark as Minor. Would like to look again in a few months. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:55, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. What Cecropia said. Snowspinner 18:57, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, the quality of his edits should offset these trivial weaker areas. Wikipedia needs talent and expertise, and more over it needs more professionals like Colipon, not necessarily people who are always online. 172 19:00, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, fine editor and promising, but aren't we adding sysops to help with dog work, which requires some presence? Of course, people can become admins and not be able to devote time later for various reasons. Just want to see more consistent track record. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very likely to support once the user reaches 1000 edits, and when a level of sustained activity is demonstrated. I think admins should be people who follow Wikipedia pretty closely. Snowspinner 19:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, due largely to insightful comments by Isomorphic below. If this gay has alot of expertise w topics thats great, but w his lack of free time and small number of edits its hard to imagine he aught to spend what little time he spends here w the chores of being an admin. Its not ment to be a status symbol or badge of merit, but rather an added responsibility. Sam [Spade] 05:25, 20 May 2004 (UTC)~[reply]
  4. Not enough experience here. Kingturtle 06:06, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral:

Comment

  • User has made about 700 total edits, but only 20 in the last 3 months. I am not sure they are active enough to be an admin. Maximus Rex 18:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks more like Colipon's back after a long break. That's not unusual. I didn't make many contributions between 9/03 and 2/04, but I retained my adminship and periodically stopped by. 172 18:53, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know him well enough to vote, but I would like to mention that, if Colipon hasn't been around much recently, there are a _lot_ of new approaches and policies that I would want to know that he/she was familiar with -- frequent editors, we can assume they've stumbled upon most of the policies (or we've seen them acknowledge them in action), but often-absent users have a lot to catch up on, I think. This may be a great editor who deserves our thanks but is so frequently absent that it wouldn't make sense for them to be admin -- if they wanted to use any of an admin's powers, they'd constantly need to be reviewing all the changes since they were last here before taking action. Does that make any sense? :-) Jwrosenzweig 19:05, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that 172 is misunderstanding the purpose of adminship. I agree that Wikipedia could use more professional academics, but they aren't automatically more qualified for adminship. Being an admin is like being a cross between a janitor and a manager. Either way, neither role requires being an expert in any given subject matter. The most relevant qualities for an admin are responsibility, maturity, respect for the community, ability to work with others, and an understanding of Wikipedia's policies. Isomorphic 20:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, I'd argue that trying to get a good content editor involved in administrative matters is potentially a waste of human resources. Isomorphic 21:12, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's never been grounds to deny anyone adminship, though I guess it is a form of flattery. "You're too smart for this mind-numbing work?" :) Fuzheado 03:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL. I just meant we don't necessarilly want to encourage our best writers to spend their time fighting vandals, maintaining VfD, and such. Certainly I wouldn't oppose for this, but I won't support just because someone writes good content. I need to believe that they would use adminship well, and that there's some reason why they should have admin powers. Those are separate issues. Isomorphic 05:16, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (16/3/0) ends 11:48 UTC, 25 May 2004

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (gotta love the name) has been around since February, is approaching 1,000 edits, and is an active member of the Wikipedia community. I think he would make a fine admin. -- Danny

Thank you for the nomination, i accept --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:50, 2004 May 18 (UTC)
My name is Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and i approve this message;) --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:48, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Seems cool-headed (would you expect otherwise from someone from Iceland?) -- Viajero 11:53, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - good choice. 172 13:23, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (gotta love the name) has been around since February, is approaching 1,000 edits, and is an active member of the Wikipedia community. I think he would make a fine admin. -- Danny (taken from nominating statement, 172 13:28, 18 May 2004 (UTC))[reply]
  4. Dori | Talk 13:53, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Assuming that Ævar, son of Bjarmi, is not related to Halfdan the Half-troll, by way of Erik Njorl, son of Frothgar... --Wik 14:56, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:04, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. --"DICK" CHENEY 17:31, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. A user who receives support from Wik, something seen on this page about as frequently as the deity Ævar worships, has probably the most ringing endorsement one could possibly get. In fact, the sense of humor rather makes me wonder what impersonator got a hold of Wik's password. Anyway, I find nothing wrong, and the shortage of substantive edits is compensated for by the work on images. --Michael Snow 20:00, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Angela. 21:30, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support firmly. Beelzebubs
  11. Cool, cool-headed, nice hair_=) --Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 06:02, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
  12. I suppose you'll tell me he wasn't one already. Fennec 19:21, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Everyking 19:27, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  14. john 21:25, 19 May 2004 (UTC) My god, Wik supports somebody for adminship? And makes a joke? That's enough for me.[reply]
  15. Agree with John. :-) Also, no big deal if he hasn't done a lot of content writing, as long as he's trustworthy and wants to pitch in on site maintainance. Isomorphic 21:41, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Notwithstanding 5/t typing errors. - MykReeve 22:47, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. I'd want to see more substantive edits. Charles Matthews 15:41, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Have to agree with Charles Matthews. Has about 800 edits but not enough breadth for me. About 100 of these concern Little Belt bridge, about 50 Flag of Iceland. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:30, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    Although Wik's support shouldn't cause the editor to be "Crucified on a Cross of Wik," I don't see how this encouraged three users to support. Must be a full moon. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not yet enough community experience, IMHO. Kingturtle 06:07, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Lowellian(11/0/0), ends 23:20 UTC, 24 May 2004

Kingturtle, you should like this one. Lowellian has over 3100 edits, and has been here since late last year. A fine candidate. Meelar 23:20, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nomination, which I accept. --Lowellian 17:07, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Meelar 23:20, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jwrosenzweig 23:22, 17 May 2004 (UTC) A very good choice -- impressive number of edits![reply]
  3. --Menchi 23:57, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hephaestos|§ 02:09, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:34, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Angela. 07:24, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Michael Snow 20:00, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Isomorphic 06:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC) Looks solid.[reply]
  9. Jiang 00:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC) was about to nominate him myself[reply]
  10. jengod 03:21, May 20, 2004 (UTC) Excellent choice.
  11. Nice person. Active participant. Interested in cleanliness. Kingturtle

Oppose

Neutral

Nunh-huh (18/1/0) ends 10:10, 23 May 2004

Nunh-huh (contribs) has been making solid contributions since early Feb 2004 and has now made >2000 major edits, mainly on European royalty/nobility and medical issues, as well as participating in project-wide discussions, e.g. on the usefulness of navigational elements. JFW | T@lk 09:17, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for the nomination (though the process feels a bit like an extended past-life review), and accept it gladly. -- Nunh-huh 19:53, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. JFW | T@lk 09:17, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. And I don't feel that having an informative user page--or any at all--should be a requirement for adminship. Meelar 17:14, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Definitely -- Cecropia | Talk 17:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Looks to produce good work to me. - MykReeve 19:58, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tεxτurε 20:07, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dpbsmith 21:07, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  7. john 21:08, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. moink 21:33, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Lst27 22:23, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Catherine - talk 23:19, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Angela. 00:39, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
  12. --Beelzebubs 00:42, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  13. jengod 05:49, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Support. --"DICK" CHENEY 12:06, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Of course! MvHG 12:33, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Looks good, but i am still curious about a user page -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:04, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Why not? --Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 14:44, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
  18. Solid contributor. Jwrosenzweig 16:15, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Hephaestos|§ 02:09, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:35, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  21. llywrch 03:01, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Jiang 00:39, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Appears to be a considerate user. If he keeps on this track, I will support at a future time. But, IMHO, not fully experienced here yet. Kingturtle 23:32, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Wile E. Heresiarch (26/2/1) ends 15:20, 21 May 2004

contribs

I'd like to nominate Wile E., who has been a solid and involved contributor here throughout 2004. Charles Matthews 14:52, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Charles, I accept the nomination. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Charles Matthews 15:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Quadell 15:35, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jwrosenzweig 15:54, 14 May 2004 (UTC) Wile's done some advanced stuff I barely understand, but the attitude (where I've seen it) has been great, and a nom from Charles Matthews pretty much assures me that Wile knows his/her stuff. :-)[reply]
  4. UninvitedCompany 16:00, 14 May 2004 (UTC). Wile E. is level-headed and meets all of my criteria.[reply]
  5. Maximus Rex 16:11, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. —No-One Jones 16:37, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dpbsmith 18:42, 14 May 2004 (UTC) Quickly looking at a few contributions I thought I could evaluate, I noticed that all the ones I looked at were just superb: Ernst Mach, Illustration of the central limit theorem and Faraday effect, to name three. His contributions to discussions always make sense to me.[reply]
  8. Smerdis of Tlön 19:38, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, no question. Isomorphic 21:06, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Angela. 21:11, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Tεxτurε 21:13, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Good contributor. GrazingshipIV 22:29, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Michael Snow 22:40, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  14. About 600 article name space edits, but high quality math stuff, including major contributions. Also active on VfD -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:10, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --Menchi 01:33, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Wikipedia is not Kingturtle's exclusive country club. --"DICK" CHENEY 19:11, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was rude and unnecessary. Cribcage 04:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering that only 3.2% of registered en: users meet Kingturtle's criteria I find eir standard to be absurd and contrary to the spirit of adminship being "no big deal". I added the message to inform other users I oppose blackballing users from adminship because they didn't fix 3,000 spelling errors/redirects/whatever without checking the minor edit box (because now minor edits don't seem to count anymore at RfA). --"DICK" CHENEY 06:16, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support strongly. RickK 04:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]
  18. Cribcage 04:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support with extreme prejudice.--Beelzebubs 15:43, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Lst27 22:23, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  21. jengod 05:51, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Many excellent contributions DrBob 18:07, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Hephaestos|§ 02:09, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  24. 172 13:32, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Gentgeen 21:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Snowspinner 18:46, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Jiang 00:42, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Rhymeless 07:04, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Not yet enough edits from Wile E, IMHO. User still needs more experience in this community before I can support. Kingturtle 01:30, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Bad judgment shown. --Wik 02:05, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Where and when? —No-One Jones 20:33, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • On MediaWiki:VfD-Structure of German grammar where he talked about "Wik's edit warring". --Wik 20:58, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
        • What, you mean where he criticized you for reverting a bunch of edits that were written by someone writing in their second language when you could have actually spent time fixing them? How's that bad judgment again? Snowspinner 18:46, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't have to fix hopelessly error-ridden material, and if I wanted to, I could as well rewrite it from scratch. If no one else fixes it, the article is better gone entirely. It is not just about his English, the German is just as wrong. Wile E. probably doesn't speak any German and so should have refrained from commenting on this at all. The same goes for you. --Wik 19:28, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
            • Of course you don't have to. However, Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot both suggest that simply deleting text is not preferable to working to fix it up. I don't think it's poor judgment to off-handedly criticize you for deleting "illiterate" text instead of working to fix it. Snowspinner 19:42, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
              • What is there to criticize? Deleting illiterate text is better than to keep it in place. --Wik 19:48, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
                • And moving it to talk, trying to clean it up, putting the page on cleanup, or any number of other things are better than deleting it. Which is what I took his point there to be. Snowspinner 19:52, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
                  • As you acknowledged, I'm not obliged to do that. He can clean it up if he wants. There is still no justification for him to accuse me about "edit warring" just because I twice removed illiterate additions from an article. --Wik 20:21, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I concure. I am not sure how long this user has actually been here, but from looking at their user page, not long. However, I could think of worse nominations. ChrisDJackson

Self nominations for adminship

Self-nominators, please review the qualifications above. Self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure." To be considered seriously you should have an account name that is many months old. Most voters will want to see many hundreds of edits. Anything less will be regarded as obviously unqualified.

User:Rogper (13/11/3); ends 18:00, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm nominating myself so that I can get those extra rights administrators have (removing own pictures, editing locked texts for interlinking, etc.) I'm administrator on the Swedish wikipedia, and have been an active Wikipedian writer since 12:47, 29 Sep 2003 under my nickname. See User history. Thank you, Rogper 18:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Extensions. I'm consider myself "generally a known and trusted member of the community.". I have not been in conflicts with other users and consider myself having familiarity with policies and procedures. Thank you for your support.
Note2. I'm an admin on the sv.wikipedia.org and decided to candidate by myself partly due to my translation of the wikipedia policy to the Swedish language, and this time I decided to self-nominate because of problems doing interlinking on locked pages.
P.S. I'm not angry of UninvitedCompany by his dictator methods of removing me before the election period was over. But if you feel for compensating me, I would be glad. :-) D.S.
/Thanks in advance!
Rogper | &#9998

Support:

  1. Dpbsmith 16:37, 13 May 2004 (UTC) Changing my vote to "support." Rogper's answers seem adequate to me. His Swedish contributions are at [1] and he seems to have about 3000 edits and to have been quite active since Sept. 2003. I don't understand any Swedish at all, but I didn't see any patterns that looked like edit wars or anything like that. Rogper needs to understand, work around, and help us to work around, the limitations of his command of English. First, he needs to be alert for possible social miscommunication, which may have happened with his initial request. Second, if he personally needs to rewrite or add whole sentences or paragraphs in English-language articles, he should alert someone who can help smooth out any problems in his English writing, which is clear and easy to understand, but not up to the standards people expect in an English-language encyclopedia. In some cases maybe he could put his rough draft in the Talk page, then let someone else move it into the main page. I'd be glad to be one of the people he can call on for such assistance. Dpbsmith 16:37, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. His self-introduction is just misunderstood, as far as I can tell from his explanations below: He wants to remove his own incorrect pictures, and edit non-controversial locked-up pages (in order to do interlink). Everybody just got all paranoid when seeing the words "remove" and "locked"! Relax!
    He sounds sincere and has a weird sense of humour. I don't think he's harmful. As regards to his competency, he really is an admin from the Swedish WP. If the Swedes can entrust adminship in him, we can do! Despiting having their bodies frozen from August to March in snow, I'm sure the Swedes nevertheless possess high standards like we do too, as long the permafrost haven't advanced to their cerebrums. ;-) --Menchi 19:25, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Den fjättrade ankan 21:38, 13 May 2004 (UTC) He is a trusted member of Swedish Wikipedia.[reply]
  4. ugen64 00:51, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
  5. I now understand Rogper's reasons. I have reviewed his work in this and the Swedish versions. Kingturtle 01:39, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support strong! Please ignore the fools below who obviously doesn't know what they are talking about. BL 04:32, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • BL, you're allowed to have strong opinions, and I'm very willing to admit that I may be wrong about Rogper, basing my vote on a limited number of interactions, but I would appreciate (as would the other opposing votes, I think) not being called a fool. Tell us why you support Rogper in the hopes of changing our minds, or simply say you support him (as you have done), but don't abuse us, please. Jwrosenzweig 16:19, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cribcage 04:39, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Lst27 22:23, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, good contributor to the WP community.Beelzebubs 00:46, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --[[User:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason|Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason]] 19:49, 2004 May 17 (UTC)
  11. Support --Avala 13:12, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seems particularly trustworthy to me, why do we need to vote on admins from other wikis? Sam [Spade] 00:21, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Fuzheado 03:40, 20 May 2004 (UTC) - support. His motives are altruistic and seems something was lost in the translation on "locked texts."[reply]

Oppose:

  1. Tεxτurε 19:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC) - I will not support any nomination for a user who wants to "edit locked texts". Admins do not have the right to edit protected pages. Nothing in your nomination suggests a legitimate reason for you to exercise admin capabilities.[reply]
  2. Misterrick - It seems in my opinion that Rogper is looking for more of a power trip then to be a productive admin. 00:13, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BCorr|Брайен 23:46, May 12, 2004 (UTC) - I agree with the above comments, and I'm also concerned about edits like this one to History of Russia.
    • What do you think is wrong? The text I added was not intended to be "patriotical" or give "credits" to Swedes. No, I like to know what the various contries' names in Europe means. For samoyedes, evenks, etc., which should almost be considered an own country although a part of Russia, it is written what it means. Why can't we do it for Russia then? // Rogper 15:51, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 172 02:57, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I believe that the English Wikipedia has a different culture and different norms than most of the other MediaWiki projects due to its size and longer history. While I can understand Rogper's frustration with being unable to add interlanguage links to protected pages, there are in fact fewer protected pages in the English Wikipedia than there are admins here who would be willing to add such links if notified of the need. UninvitedCompany 21:47, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agreeing with Angela -- I'm sure he's done good things for the Swedish WP, but I'd like to see a little more familiarity with en. practices and policies first. Jwrosenzweig 22:36, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, not real reasons.--Ryan B. 00:26, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Not enought time on Wikipedia and not good enough reasons for seeking an adminiship. Power hungriness is no real reason, as stated above, to become a administrator. ChrisDJackson
  9. Oppose. I have concerns about his motivations for wanting to be an admin, and I'm not certain his English is good enough to be effective. Personally, I also cannot stand it when people being voted upon come here and nitpick and respond to every critique. Let us vote without these sorts of distractions. Although it's not against the rules to do so, it's enough to tip my hand to Oppose in cases such as this one. My vote, my choice to feel that way. Moncrief 03:08, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
  10. I agree with Moncrief, fluency in English is important. For example, I should never be an admin on the French Wikipedia because my less than fluent command of French would cause far too many misunderstandings and mix-ups. --"DICK" CHENEY 23:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Jiang 00:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC) unless we change our policy to automatically grant adminship to admins of other wikipedias, this should be no exception to the rule. He can post a note on the article talk pages if the need is present to add interwiki links. --Jiang 00:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral:

  • I'm leaning toward oppose, but I have to say we might all be a little paranoid -- especially if Rogper is an admin elsewhere. After all, there are plenty of people who might want to be admin to be able to edit the main page (a locked text), though I admit it's generally a bad thing to do. But perhaps we could ask Rogper nicely instead of assuming bad faith. :-) And BCorr, the edit to Russia doesn't look horrible to me at first glance -- what do you find objectionable? Jwrosenzweig 23:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing sinister -- its just "messy" and unclear and has typos, which isn't a sin by any means, but leads me to wonder a bit about the judgment of someone who's willing to make such edits to the opening paragraph of an article as important as that one, and is a contributing factor to my opposition. (And I haven't tried to clean it up yet because I'm not sure what to leave in -- if anything). BCorr|Брайен 23:57, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but I think I have a good english, sometimes. :-) (N.B. Thou, my English teacher didn't think so.) I can't currently come up with English terms in medivæl times for Novgorod, Kieve and Polatsk. I wrote the Swedish ones, hoping that someone other would know it. I like to read the meaning of different countries names, e.g. what russia or england might possible mean. Note: I'm not claiming that Sweden built up Russia, and I consider Rus' (people) not the place to write about Gardariki; I'm not after crediting Sweden if it was that you thought! :-) // Rogper 15:51, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Swedish wikipedia, I started to set-up so that everybody could edit the main page, administrator or not, by using the MediaWiki features like {{msg:feature}}. NOTE THIS IS A VERY FUNNY JOKE. If you don't give me adminship I will vandalize the main page because I have authority to do that!!! END VERY FUNNY JOKE :-) //Rogper 15:51, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was wise of you to put in the capital letters and the smiley. However, even native English speakers sometimes have difficulties communicating humor and irony online. When I read your VERY FUNNY JOKE, even with the capital letters and smiley, I find that I am only 99.9% sure that you are joking. Dpbsmith 17:05, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

*I went to User history as suggested. But when I clicked on "hide minor contributions" there wasn't very much left... and when I started looking at the ones that weren't minor, they didn't seem very substantial. Aquatic and environmental engineering, which he created, is just a stub. Etymological_list_of_U.S._states is nice. I'd think I'd have to say that Rogper really didn't put his best foot forward in making his request. Dpbsmith 00:38, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hey, I think you have wrong here. Is a huge work as an editor a pre-requist for an adminstratorship? Where is this rule, i.e. can you point me to that link where it is written? I'm doing much work on Swedish wikipedia, and therefore, there is smaller work here. But when I find topics I know that don't exists, I create them, e.g. Etymological_list_of_U.S._states, 11 March, 2004 Madrid attacks (a populare article, which I started in another article title), Reis' telephone, etc.
  • His request probably stems from a post he made on Village Pump, in which he wanted to add an interwiki link to Swedish Wiki onto a protected page. Considering that he mostly frequents the Swedish wiki, we should probably cut his phrasing a little slack as well - don't assume English is his first or best language. Snowspinner 00:44, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your correct observations and politeness. :-) Yes, I'm not English but I'm trying my best in writing correct grammar and spelling. Rogper
      • I'm sure your English is better than my Swedish. :) Angela. 22:32, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • In response to Texture's comment: there are lots of protected pages that sysops can edit, including the Main Page, most of the MediaWiki namespace, and pages that basically don't need any editing other than the addition of interlanguage links, such as Wikipedia:Copyrights. For information, Rogper has made 743 edits, including edits to approximately 336 different articles. I'd like to know what he means by "removing pictures" before I vote, and whether he understands the deletion policies on the English Wikipedia. Angela. 07:07, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I was joking I would vandalize the main page since everybody have the authority to do so. Hope everybody see it as a joke. :-) Thank you people that will support me. // Rogper 15:54, 13 May 2004 (UTC) P.S. My point (with the joke) is that you don't need any adminship to change the Main Page, and I guess all admins on English wikipedia know that. (This is not a response for Angela's comment.) D.S. // Rogper 18:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restating: I want to remove the pictures I have uploaded, if I need to. There are various resons, e.g. re-naming the article title can only be done by remove and re-uploading the image, or if the picture does not belong on Wikipedia it needs to be removed. Again, I'm not planning to vandalize! // Rogper 18:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rogper, I think you need to spend more time getting familiar with our policies. An image can not just be deleted "if the picture does not belong on Wikipedia". It needs to go through WP:IFD even if you are the uploader of that image. I suggest you look at the administrators' reading list and apply again in a month or so. Angela. 22:32, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, all should be updated with recent Wikipedia Policy, and this include me as well as all already existing admins. Note that, and this is not intent for you Angela, not all images shuld be put on WP:IFD. And besides this; some "image listers" state they already deleted some images, but are unsure what to do with the rest. (Those who suggests images for deletion has not created them by themself, mainly.) If I upload a file called "Jojk.jpg", and deduce later that it should be called "Yoik.jpg", then I have the rights - without any village pump discussion at IFD or elsewhere - to remove Jojk.jpg and upload it as Yoik.jpg (See naming conventions.) // Rogper 13:36, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

  • Can you explain what locked texts you want to edit? Kingturtle 22:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wanted to edit an interwiki link (see sample question), where the text was locked. However, I have had this problem before and at that time I didn't have the energy to take it up further, thus the wikipedia had to suffer. I consider myself trustable and feels somewhat offended by this huge scepticism about me beeing an administrator. I'm not after vandalizing !, and why can there be inactive administrators having authorizations, and not me who is active? I'm doing much of work on the Swedish wikipedia, therefore my most contributions to the English project usually involves interwikifying. (Those few topics I know that don't exists, I create.) Rogper 15:51, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what pictures you want to remove? Dpbsmith 00:49, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • I want to remove the pictures I have uploaded, if I need to. There are various resons, e.g. re-naming the article title can only be done by remove and re-uploading the image, or if the picture does not belong on Wikipedia it needs to be removed. Again, I'm not planning to vandalize! // Rogper 15:51, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I believe you. And I understand your desire. What is your username in the sv.wikipedia.org? Kingturtle 01:35, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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=3656899"