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 Davidcannon (talk | contribs) at 22:45, 1 July 2004 (→[[User:Davidcannon]] (17/0/0) 03:11, 3 July 2004 (UTC): Double vote questioned). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
WP:RFA does not stand for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.

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.

Voting for nominations is for a period of 7 calendar days, unless extended, measured from the time of nomination. Current time is 23:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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, you should probably 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 uncertainty, 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.

Current time is 23:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Cutler (4/0/0) ends 20:37, 8 July 2004

A very smart, polite user who has made many fantastic contribs (~1140) about the scientific community, scientists, etc. Here since at least December 30, 2003.

Honoured and flattered to be nominated. Not something I'd especially sought but pleased to accept and be part of this great project. Cutler 16:01, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Merovingian✍Talk 12:39, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support --H. CHENEY 15:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:54, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. A shoo-in. Neutrality 16:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Strongly support. David Cannon 22:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

User actually has exactly 1140 edits as of this posting ([1]). -- Grunt (talk) 14:01, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)

User:Marine 69-71 (1/9/0) 23:35, 6 July 2004

I think he's an excellent addition to wikipedia. His work on the histpry of Puerto Ricans is respectable, and he spends countless hours editing, reviewing or writing his articles. He does at least three articles per day, I think. Antonio El Bello Martin

This editor has not yet accepted the nomination.

Support

  1. Antonio Pink Spot Lover Martin

Oppose

  1. Not near enough experience. -- Michael Warren 22:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Needs more experience (Maybe DarkHorizon overstates it by saying 'Not near enough' however) EddEdmondson 22:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe so. Still, less than 500 edits on a small area of expertise isn't all that good for adminship, IMO. -- Michael Warren | Talk 22:49, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. Sorry, but even with the "Adminship shouldn't be a big deal" policy, (nothing against him personally) this user is far below requirements (-500 edits, barely more than a month as a registered user). blankfaze | •• | •• 23:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Not enough time here, especially when the number of contributions is not particularly high. I would give the nomination far more consideration (that is, take the time to evaluate the quality of contributions) if it came from a more disinterested party. --Michael Snow 01:35, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Good work as an editor, but has no activity at all in the Wikipedia: namespace, and no interaction on Talk: pages, so no way of telling whether he would be a good admin or not. —Stormie 01:59, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
  6. I'm about of an age with Marine (call me Army 67-69) and I'd be flattered if one of my daughters nominated me so nicely, but this is way too soon in terms of time, edits and variety. Hope he'll be back in a couple of months when we know him better. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:44, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. I'm very sorry, but I must agree (not enough edits) although Marine is a good, decent user. Merovingian✍Talk 07:14, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
  8. He seems like a nice person, but just not enough experience to qualify. Neutrality 16:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  9. Good user. Try again in a few months. Cribcage 16:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. David Cannon 22:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) Marine, I like the quality of your work, and would willingly support you if you qualified. I don't think you've been here quite long enough, but I assure you that if you hold on for a few months, your turn will come. I will vote for you then:-)

Comments

  • 404 edits since 24 May 2004 [2]. -- Michael Warren 22:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Nominee is also father of nominator, according to user page. -- Michael Warren 22:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Blankfaze (19/0/0) 14:00, 6 July 2004 (2004)

Tags stuff for speedy deletion, patrols Recent Changes, performs other fun administrivia. Chats onna IRC channel. Second-spiffiest user page I've ever seen (next to User:Angela's). Has a sense of humor humour. Claims to have been here since 3 April with 2600-2800 edits. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 14:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Er, well, I was surprised by Fennec's nomination, but... pleasantly, I suppose. Thanks, and I accept your nomination for the Presidency of the United States of America! blankfaze | •• | •• 14:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I've never made a single biased or POV edit, IMO. I've never touched an article with a religious topic. I try to be NPOV at all times. And I always, always abide by consensuses here on WP, even if I don't agree with them. blankfaze | •• | •• 17:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 14:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Neutrality 14:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. Keep. Er, wait… —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 14:44, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
  4. SkArcher 15:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. Mike H 16:41, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Sometimes a fish is just a fish. In any case, we have many admins with strong personal views about both politics and religion. The important thing is that they respect the NPOV policy and not use their position to promote their viewpoint or suppress opposing views. I don't believe Blankfaze will do this, so I support. --Michael Snow 16:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. If we asked our admins not to have opinions--or even not to make them clear--I can think of dozens who wouldn't be admins any more. Blankfaze has always behaved well in his interactions with me, and would make a good admin. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:58, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. Fredrik | talk 21:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. David Gerard 23:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) - despite the fish (formerly Danzig).
  10. Good nomination - Tεxτurε 23:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  11. older≠wiser 23:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  12. Merovingian✍Talk 05:35, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:39, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  14. Lst27 18:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  15. H. CHENEY 19:22, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  16. Hope you like this support ;-P [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 19:30, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  17. Michael Warren | Talk 22:53, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  18. Support Secretlondon 23:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  19. Woggly 11:54, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments:

  1. (previous on opposing) I have to confess i am a bit distressed by the amounts of bolds and screaming used to respond to a perfectly well balanced comment on an opposing vote. Muriel G 16:02, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I understand. Ordinarily, this would not be the case, but his comment was so unbalanced and just... off-base... that it really offended me. I pride myself on my tolerance and acceptance, and for someone to accuse me of being some sort of anti-Christian bigot... just... really offends me. blankfaze | •• | •• 16:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • You shouldnt be ofended. Anyway, i am removing this to comments, because i have really nothing against you personally. Muriel G 16:09, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I shouldn't be offended if someone accuses me of being intolerant? Well, I'm sorry, but I am. blankfaze | •• | •• 16:14, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I think this was intended as emphasis rather than screaming and is quite reasonable given the accusations… —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 16:10, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
    • Blankfaze, you insensitive clod!!! I'm going to beat you up for that "warmongering tyrant" bit! <boof! pow!>
      However, I fail to see how this reflects on his suitability for adminship. Perhaps if you'd care to point out him adding POV to an article of some sort, Cecropia, you'd have a case... - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 15:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  1. I too would have been offended if someone made assumptions based on a picture of a fish. However think on this - It is quite possible that Cecropia was joking! theresa knott 16:20, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  1. Sadly, I Oppose. Blankfaze's apparent hostility to Christianity and ridicule of a Christian symbol (the Fish) on his user page suggest a current lack of maturity in dealings with the diverse community Wikipedia represents. Since I am bound to be asked, I am unchurched personally, and consider myself a freethinker. If I were forced to subscribe to the tenets of a faith, I would probably have to look toward Bahai in that it attempts to respect the validity of all religions, races and peoples. Cecropia | Talk 15:32, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Whoa, no offense, Cecropia, but you're waaaaaaaaaaay wrong here. First of all, I have no hostility towards Christianity at all. I think religion is a great thing for a great many people. I DO have a problem with it playing such a prominent role in my nation's highest office, because not everyone in my country is a Christian. That is all you can read into that. I have no beef with Christianity. Second of all, the fish has NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING to do with Christianity. At all. It's the logo/mascot/symbol for my band The Milky Ways. The description text clearly says "blankfaze's avatar" ... His name is Fishy and it's just a dead stick-figure fish. It has NOTHING to do with Christianity. So, I respect your vote to oppose, but I want you to know that you're off-base on that. blankfaze | •• | •• 15:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • A fair enough explanation. Objection withdrawn, though I think you'll now have to deal with fish supporters. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Thank you, and I apologise for getting so heated, but I take accusations like that rather to heart. Ikes! Fish supporters! I forgot all about them!!! blankfaze | •• | •• 16:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • THAT IS A GROSS NATIONAL INSULT AGAINST FISH (formerly Danzig) - David Gerard 23:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. He really does strive for excellence in whatever he does, and has helped me, on multiple occasions, in cleaning up not only articles devoted to our hometown, but to more diverse exploits as well. His user page is evidence of that. Mike H 16:41, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

User:Rmhermen (18/0/0) 22:55, 5 July 2004 (UTC)

Rmhermen has been here since sometime in 2002 and made nearly 10,000 edits under this account. I've never seen Rmhermen get into any trouble and was very suprised to find out that Rmhermen is still not an admin. (So suprised I had to ask before nominating.) Someone who's acquired so many edits and been around so long certainly deserves it. --Jiang 22:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I accept. Actually I've been here since the first half of 2001 -blame those early software upgrades which lost some of the edit histories. And I must admit there have been a few conflicts in that time. I remember HJ in particular. I promise I won't abuse any power. In fact you may have to remind me what it is. Everything moves so fast these days... nobody remembers back when... In the old days we ... Rmhermen 23:18, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Jiang 22:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Dori | Talk 23:03, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Wow. I know this is a cliche here on RfA, but I really, really thought you were already an admin. REALLY! blankfaze | •• | ••­ 23:26, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. What Blankfaze said. older≠wiser 23:47, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. An excellent choice I'd have nominated long ago if I'd thought to check. Jwrosenzweig 23:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. --"DICK" CHENEY 00:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. An excellent nomminee. Neutrality 01:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. Certainly. Everyking 02:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  10. David Cannon 04:01, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) Without reservation.
  11. Merovingian✍Talk 04:25, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  12. I didn't know Rmhermen had been around for quite this long, but even if I was only considering what I've seen of Rmhermen over the past few months, it's quite enough for me to support. --Michael Snow 16:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  13. Tεxτurε 23:20, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  14. Warofdreams 17:58, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  15. Lst27 18:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  16. BCorr|Брайен 19:14, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  17. Secretlondon 02:09, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  18. Woggly 12:07, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  19. David Gerard 13:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  20. Smerdis of Tlön 18:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

User:Davidcannon (17/0/0) 03:11, 3 July 2004 (UTC)

David has been here since the beginning of January and made 3,352 edits as of June 12. I thought he was an admin until I noticed he was revert vandals the old fashion way. I feel he would be a great admin. --"DICK" CHENEY 03:11, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating me, Dick! I accept. Being an admin isn't something I've given a lot of thought to, but I promise that I will faithfully attend to any administrative responsibilities if chosen. To let others know where I stand, I'm a strong believer in democracy, so I promise not to take any major actions (deleting articles, etc.) without putting them to a vote first. I've been a bit quiet on Wikipedia in June due to a temporary overload at work, but will be back to full-time Wikiholism in July. Once again, I'm so grateful for this nomination. Thank you so much. David Cannon 04:16, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. --"DICK" CHENEY 03:11, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Good solid work and a lot of it! Pollinator 13:46, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Though people who speak Esperanto frighten me, Dave is an excellent worker and has a well-measured temperament. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:22, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Lst27 02:46, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jiang 04:22, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) solid contributor
  6. Fredrik | talk 12:47, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. --GeneralPatton 23:31, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. Merovingian✍Talk 02:44, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Fuzheado | Talk 13:04, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC) - solid friendly contributor.
  10. theresa knott 13:20, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  11. Acegikmo1 15:23, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Jwrosenzweig 16:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  13. Michael Snow 16:26, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  14. older≠wiser 23:26, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  15. Lst27 18:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  16. BCorr|Брайен 19:15, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) Absolutely!
  17. Woggly 12:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  18. Neutrality 16:18, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  19. Smerdis of Tlön 19:01, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

  • Note for User:Lst27: You're the kind of person I love - someone who supports me strongly enough to vote for me not once, but twice! You are both the fourth and the fifteenth person to vote for me. I feel very gratified, but I'm sure I'm only allowed one vote from you, so you might like to look into this:-)

Fredrik (30/0/0) ends 22:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fredrik has something over 8000 edits since October 2003, and has been very active this year in particular. He has accumulated so many edits partly through very diligent and systematic work in cleaning up articles. He also has participated in discussing proposed deletions. As a result, I think we would benefit from having Fredrik as an admin. In enforcing our stylistic conventions, he has been willing to listen to opposing views and conducted himself in a very reasonable fashion. In sum, I believe he satisfies virtually every criterion I have ever seen anybody suggest an admin should have. --Michael Snow 22:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I accept. Thank you Michael for the nomination and for the encouraging words. Fredrik | talk 23:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Michael Snow 22:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Everyking 22:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support --"DICK" CHENEY 22:44, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Merovingian✍Talk 23:19, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
  5. All my experiences with Fredrik have been good ones. Jwrosenzweig 23:24, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. Kingturtle 23:26, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 03:06, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:24, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) Fredrik edits the wiki like a Terminator reprogrammed to be extra helpful
    I, for one, welcome our new robot admin. Sorry, it had to be said. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:46, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Denni☯ 03:28, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
  10. ALargeElk | Talk 12:15, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  11. I've already commended Fredrik for his almost mechanical diligence and cool demeanor. No doubt he'll be a great admin. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 12:27, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
  12. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:08, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  13. I have no doubt that Fredrik can handle being an admin. →Raul654 16:03, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Warofdreams 18:19, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  15. My god...he has over 7000 edits and signed onto an account a few months after me... Ilyanep (Talk) 18:21, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  16. My edits have just crossed paths with his (WP:FAC). Support. - David Gerard 19:30, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  17. Decumanus 20:04, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  18. jengod 23:13, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
  19. Acegikmo1 01:38, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
  20. David Remahl 16:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  21. Lst27 02:46, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  22. +sj+ 17:27, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)  !
  23. David Cannon 20:12, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) Fredrik is levelheaded, POV-conscious, and always courteous to other users. I appreciate the very high quality of his work, and heartily support his nomination.
  24. --GeneralPatton 23:32, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  25. -JCarriker 08:33, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
  26. Neutrality 01:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  27. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:29, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
  28. older≠wiser 23:27, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  29. Secretlondon 02:10, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  30. Woggly 12:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

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.


Requests for bureaucratship

Please add new requests at the top of this section (and again, please update the headers when voting)


Other requests

Possible misuses of administrator powers
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=4394093"