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 EddEdmondson (talk | contribs) at 07:07, 10 July 2004 (→[[User:Quadell]] (9/5/2) ends 04:30, 13 July 2004: vote change). 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 17:26, 14 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.

While achieving administrator status is rightly considered a recognition by the Wikipedia community, those being proposed should ideally desire to actively use their additional powers to help the community with the often tedious but very necessary chores that require their extra access. Though administrators speak with no special authority when interacting with other editors, those seeking the position should be aware that other editors, especially new ones, are likely to expect them to represent the best of Wikipedia and be courteous and helpful and willing to point them in the direction of information they seek. While there is no harm to having an inactive administrator, Wikipedia administrators should be willing to use their extra powers when they can to keep Wikipedia up-to-date.

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 17:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Neutrality (15/2/0) Ends 04:27, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality has been an exceptional contributor to Wikipedia. Uploading excellent fairuse images, volunteering with the Association of Members Advocates, making meaningful edits to articles involving history and political science, and contributing positively to community dialog have been Neutrality's hallmarks. I think the community can agree that Neutrality's 2000 edits have been an invaluable addition to Wikipedia, and we should expand the responsiblity of Neutrality to include adminship. --H. CHENEY 04:27, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to Hcheney and Ambivalenthysteria: the former has been kind to me from the first day, while I look foward to working with the latter as a sysop! (see below) I am confident I can help keep Wikipedia sane (or as sane as it could ever be, anyway) ;) Neutrality 04:46, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. H. CHENEY 04:27, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. From what I've seen, I couldn't agree more. Ambivalenthysteria 04:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Hephaestos|§ 04:53, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. Acegikmo1 05:11, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Woggly 09:25, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC) the cliche, "thought you were one"
  6. EddEdmondson 09:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. ALargeElk | Talk 10:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  8. 172 13:02, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  9. Quadell (talk) 18:54, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
  10. If you've got Hcheney's support, you've got mine. blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:12, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  11. David Cannon 20:45, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC).
  12. Strongly support. Lst27 22:33, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  13. older≠wiser 22:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  14. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:11, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  15. Merovingian✍Talk 07:00, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Has been a logged in user for less than 2 months. Maximus Rex 22:25, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    A question, if I may. I respect your vote, but I would like to ask you this: what would make me a better sysop two or three months from now, as opposed to today? Neutrality 04:24, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
  2. I can't answer for Maximus Rex, but I can give you an answer. In two or three months we'll know you better, and see more of your work and interaction with the community. I would also point out that the controversy surrounding Quadell which caused several, including you, to vote against him, did not occur until he had been here the three months. This seems to me reinforce the idea that three months perhaps should be a hard minimum. Therefore, I oppose for now. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral Comments

  • Also, a preemptive response to the inquiries that will surely come: Yes, I have read the Administrators page and understand the rights and responsibilities that come with the office. I would probably patrol Recent Changes for vandals, as well as helping out at Vandalism in Progress and VfD. I’d also assist with editing the Main Page (grammatical errors drive me crazy, being the copy editor that I am.) Neutrality 04:46, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

User:Ambivalenthysteria (26/0/0) Ends 03:52, July 14 (UTC)

Active since July of 2003. 2214 edits, 817 non-minor. I take the small number of non-minor edits more as evidence that she actually uses the minor edit checkbox. Has done extensive work categorizing, is active on IRC, VfD, and FAC, seems to handle dispute well, reverts vandalism, and it's generally a shame she's not already an admin. Snowspinner 03:59, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I accept the nomination. Ambivalenthysteria 04:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Snowspinner 03:59, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  3. Dysprosia 04:14, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) devoted and committed editor, with extensive experience in other encyclopedia projects. Would be a great addition.
  4. Strong support. blankfaze | •• | •• 04:28, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Everyking 04:34, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. Neutrality 04:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. Merovingian✍Talk 05:25, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Michael Snow 05:29, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  9. <cliche> I thought she was one! </cliche> Seriously though, I had noticed her good contributions to policy and administrative-type discussions. Isomorphic 05:34, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  10. Markalexander100 06:20, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC). Missed on ODP, glad she's still around here.
  11. A fantastic contributor, she commands my respect. - Mark 08:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  12. EddEdmondson 09:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  13. —No-One Jones 13:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  14. Lst27 22:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  15. Cecropia | Talk 00:58, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  16. Strong support! [[User:DO'Neil|DO'Иeil]] 04:48, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Most nominations that Lir would attempt to sabotage should be supported. --H. CHENEY 05:08, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  18. Woggly 09:30, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  19. David Gerard 09:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  20. Definitely. ALargeElk | Talk
  21. 172 13:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  22. Quadell (talk) 18:54, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
  23. BCorr|Брайен 19:11, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  24. john k 21:11, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  25. older≠wiser 22:44, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  26. David Cannon 01:22, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC). Sorry I overlooked your nomination until now, Ambivalenthisteria. I strongly support you.

Oppose

Neutral

Comments A few standard questions for admin candidates, if you care to respond:

  1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
Yup.
  1. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
Of course.
  1. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
I tend to watch RC/watch for vandals of late anyway, but that will be much easier if I have the rollback function. I'm sure I'll end up helping with VFD too. Ambivalenthysteria 00:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks and good luck. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:34, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is there any reason why Lir is supporting your candidacy? --H. CHENEY 04:29, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because Lir is mad at me for dragging him to the Arbitration Committee, and he's trying to sabotoge nominations I make by voting for them and getting reasonable people like you to object just because he supports them. :) Snowspinner 04:34, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
I guess that's it. I haven't had anything to do with Lir, and as the IRC logs would show, I was a bit concerned when that vote came in. Ambivalenthysteria 04:37, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Mark (21/0/0) Ends 06:55 July 12

Mark's been here since late 2001 (no, that's not a typo). He's a very familiar face on IRC, and he's been nominated here at least twice (that I know of) and he's turned both of them down. I asked him again if he wanted to be an admin, and this time he agreed. He's a hard worker and extremely trustworthy, and I have no doubts he'd make a fine admin. →Raul654 06:58, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. As Raul says, I finally agreed. I've been here a long time, but I haven't been an especially active user, and I don't expect to become incredibly active any time soon. The only sysop privleges I would use if I had access to them would probably be image deletion (getting rid of thumbnails obviated by the thumbnailer) and page deletion (for when the slightly smarter vandals create a new page of vandalism, rather than just editing an existing page). Anyway, only support my nomination if you feel I have the necessary experience and you trust me. - Mark 08:03, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Note for blankfaze: Yes I am Mark Ryan on both IRC and Meta. That used to be my username here on Wikipedia as well. - Mark 10:29, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support --H. CHENEY 08:12, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. EddEdmondson 08:38, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Mark Ryan? Of course I support. blankfaze | •• | •• 09:05, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. David Cannon 09:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Of course. James F. (talk) 09:56, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. About time. Dori | Talk 13:15, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Acegikmo1 17:00, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  8. If Raul supports him... ;) Neutrality 18:16, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  9. Wow! 2001, I'm impressed. Merovingian✍Talk 18:24, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  10. David Gerard 21:38, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  11. Mark Ryan from IRC? Support, naturally! DO'Иeil 13:48, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Hephaestos|§ 04:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  13. Support. Tothebarricades.tk 08:46, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  14. Of course, though i am dismayed to hear that you let your studies and personal life take precedence. Danny 11:01, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  15. Warofdreams 18:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  16. MykReeve 19:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  17. Lst27 22:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  18. ALargeElk | Talk 10:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  19. 172 13:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  20. Quadell (talk) 18:54, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
  21. Dysprosia 04:14, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

  • Mark has made 1540 edits. --H. CHENEY 08:12, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Mark has the necessary experience, and I trust him, but this sort of emphasizes that we don't know how many admins we really have; active rather than honorary. Nothing at all personal to Mark; I'm not opposing him. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:04, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • By "not active", I mean I make sure my studies and personal life take precedence over time spent on Wikipedia (except during holidays). I'm not planning to go away for six months like I did in 2002. - Mark 02:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Self nominations for adminship

Self-nominators, please review the qualifications above. Many editors feel that self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure," have an account name that is many months old and have many hundreds of edits. This is not to say that self-nominators are necessarily any less qualified than "sponsored" nominations; however, many editors use their knowledge of the nominator as a "jumping off" point for considering nominees, and it is human nature to be more skeptical of those asking for a position than those being proposed by others. If you self-nominate, a good solid background is therefore very important.

User:Quadell (8/5/3) ends 04:30, 13 July 2004

I feel I could contribute to Wikipedia as a moderator, and I'd like to try. I've been a member for three months and a day, and in that time I've made a little over 1300 edits. Look over my work and see what you think; in the past week, I've created new articles on Amanullah Khan, Ben Webster, Richard Boone, Patrick Jenkin, Table Alphabeticall, Festival of Muharram, Cursor Mundi, Hobson-Jobson, Hereward Thimbleby Price, and others. Quadell (talk) 20:58, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. [[User:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason|Ævar Arnfjör<eth>Bjarmason]] I think he'll be fine;)
  2. Cecropia | Talk 19:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) He wikifies, works on requested articles, does the kind of dog work (categorizing, copyedit) that admins should do, and expresses a positive desire to do admin work. Gladly support.
  3. Cribcage 21:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. Ambivalenthysteria 03:52, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Handles tight spots (delicate subjects) very well. --Merovingian✍Talk 05:28, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, why not. You seem level-headed enough, and quantity of edits does not necessarily correspond to quality of edits. Plus I didn't want to be in the same boat as Acegikmo1. Just make sure you're familiar with all the policies, okay? blankfaze | •• | •• 06:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) Vote withdrawn. Nothing personal, but in light of your actions discovered by Secretlondon combined with my original skepticism, I no longer feel comfortable with this vote. blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • EddEdmondson 14:28, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) - to neutral
  6. Lst27 22:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. Elf | Talk 04:01, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC). In my limited dealings with Quadell, my general impression is of someone who is flexible, cheerful, agreeable, a quick learner, & willing to go exploring to find out more about Wikipedia. Elf | Talk 04:01, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  8. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:27, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Your response to the threatened libel action on Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz doesn't give me confidence that you have the maturity needed. Secretlondon 02:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. I agree. A paragraph Quadell wrote on Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz has created a much greater threat to Wikipedia than the original article. I suspect Quadell does not know why. If Elf is correct that Quadell is flexible, cheerful, agreeable, (and) a quick learner then I guess I might change my opinion in a few months time.Moriori 03:25, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
    As a PS, I think Quadell should no longer edit Khalid bin Mahfouz. On his user page, Quaddell says I also, somewhat perversely, enjoy shining a light on influencial people who would rather not attract too much attention, such as ...... Khalid bin Mahfouz..... Rightly or wrongly, some people might say that indicates he is editing with malice.Moriori
  3. I've never voted against anyone before, usually I abstain if I choose not to vote positively. But in regards to Khalid bin Mahfouz, as well as Quadell's user page, I must agree with Moriori, as it troubles me to think of the consequences if something like this happened repeatedly. Rhymeless 05:24, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. Wow, this is the first time I've ever voted in Support, Oppose, and Neutral on one person. But seriously: I was originally only going to withdraw my support vote, by I am really concerned with the Khalid bin Mahfouz stuff. I don't think you're ready for this. Get a clear head and come back in a few months. Nothing personal. blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:02, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. On blankfaze's recommendation, and my own findings, I hearby withraw my vote in support and change it to a vote to oppose. Neutrality 06:12, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Acegikmo1 21:21, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) I remember your username because I've come across your edits in the past. A brief scanning of your contributions confirms that you've made many excellent edits and have also engaged in good discussion. My only reservation is that you've only been here since April. I would be happy to support in a few months.
    IMO, kind-of a low number of edits for a self-nomination. Plus, from a quick glance at the User's talk page, he seems to not be as familiar with Wikipedia policy as he need be. I'd probably support after 2000+ edits and a thorough reading of all of our policies as well as Wikipedia:Administrators. blankfaze | •• | •• 21:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Will support after 1500 edits. --Merovingian✍Talk 09:55, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Looking through contributions, a lot of them - several hundred at least - are minor edits, mostly adding categories to articles. That's no criticism: it's all necessary work. But it does mean that you perhaps don't have as much experience as some others might have with the same number of edits. Combined with the fact that this is a self-nomination, I'm inclined to oppose, for now, but would certainly reconsider in a couple of months. Neutrality is right, adminship should be no big deal. On that basis, and on the basis of what Quadell has said here, and on the basis that other Wikipedians who I greatly respect seem to have no problem, I'm moving to neutral. ALargeElk | Talk 15:29, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Moved from support. I want the chance to look through the KbM stuff discussed in Oppose and see Quadell respond.EddEdmondson 07:07, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User has exactly 1354 edits as of this minute, for anyone who wants to know. blankfaze | •• | •• 20:10, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A few standard questions for admin candidates, if you care to respond:

  1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
  2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
  3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
Thanks and good luck. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Answers: Yes I have read the Administrators section, and yes, I am interested in sysop custodial duties. Some of what I would want to help with are things I already do in a more limited capacity: looking through recent changes for errors, welcoming new users, adding most-requested articles, and watching out for vandalism. I would also want to be able to respond to editor requests for assistance. Quadell (talk) 15:05, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Is there any part of Quadell's history I could look at to see how they might handle an edit war? Quadell - have you ever edited a controversial article for instance? Given this is a self-nomination an indication of how diplomatic you can be would be helpful. EddEdmondson 15:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sure. In fact, when I first discovered Wikipedia, I jumped in with creating and updating biographies of 9/11 Commission members, Khalid bin Mahfouz, and Katharine Gun! Those could have been landmines, but I tended to discuss before making big changes, and I didn't run into any conflicts right away. But when I tried to edit the September 11, 2001 attacks article, I ran into a conflict (which is preserved in the amber of Wiki). I suggested a change here, and after murmers of approval, made the change. Another user reverted the changes, and I responded here. I didn't know much about Wikipedia policies at the time, but I tried to be polite. I offered to put it up for a poll, but the other user did not want to. Not knowing the procedures for dispute resolution, I simply let the matter drop. Knowing what I know now, I would request third party assistance, start a poll, or ask for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Still, I did not turn the dispute into an edit war, and I have never participated in one. I tend to avoid these sorts of conflicts when possible, and with a few embarrassing exceptions, I don't let my ego get me into a fight. Quadell (talk) 18:51, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yep, you sound like a Buddhist, all right. :-P blankfaze | •• | •• 19:15, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • People lose sight of the fact that adminship should be "no big deal," demanding that sysop candidates have thousands of brilliant edits before supporting. This is misguided. Neutrality 01:08, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree, but our view is outnumbered. What drives me nuts is that there's no consistency. If y'all are going to insist that adminship must be doled out carefully, and not simply granted to anyone who behaves responsibly, then change the stated policy. Cribcage 06:07, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Like most everything else here, the policy has been chewed over until there is consensus, which may mean agreement, but also may mean lack of opposition to the current understanding. The quotation of "no big deal" came after some users were virtually wanting to raise a Star Chamber in chewing on certain candidates--this is not a coronation and the new sysops don't become princes and princesses of the realm. That is why this is not a big deal—However, we sometimes go in the opposite direction now (not referring to this candidacy, which I supported early and firmly) and start passing out adminships like peanuts just so somebody and say "hey, I'm a sysop on Wikipedia cooooool!" and then rarely ever perform the work that underlies the desire to have more sysops. I think at a minimum, a candidate should exhibit some measure of maturity and calmness, fairness in dealing with others, including those with opposing views, and a positive desire not to be a paper sysop. For those purposes, and those alone, this is a big deal. If we just want to make sysop a simple right of passage, then give out "I'm a proud Wikipedian" awards with a nice graphic to put on home pages. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:36, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, a few immature people may want adminship solely for status ("paper sysops"). What's the harm? Those people aren't going to perform cleanup duties, etc. whether they have sysop status or not. If they want cheap bragging rights, why do we care? Cribcage 00:23, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • There is no great harm, except that we want to encourage people to take sysophood seriously. People do not respect what is cheap, and we need people to have enough pride in obtaining the position to take it show willingness to make an effort, not just accept a title. If they can't show a desire to understand the duties and make a non-binding commitment upon seeking a position of responsibility, the community should be aware. If sysophead sysophood were really "no big deal [at all]," our polling would not have indicated that a requirement of 75%-80% assent is almost universally expected for promotion. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:13, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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=4541443"