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 Pcb21 (talk | contribs) at 10:33, 27 July 2004 (→[[User:Snowspinner]] (38/1/0) Ends 17:06, 31 July 2004). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

This page is where the Wikipedia community considers requests made for a Wikipedian to become an administrator. In addition to requests for adminship, the page is also used for requests to become a bureaucrat. (If you came to this page using the shortcut WP:RFA and were looking for Wikipedia:requests for arbitration, please use the shortcut WP:RFAr instead.)

Admins, also sometimes called sysops, are users with access to a few technical features that help with Wikipedia maintenance. See Wikipedia:Administrators for a more detailed discussion of what this entails. The administrators' reading list is a good preparation before you become an admin. Consider reading this before applying for adminship. New sysops can learn how to use the added features at the Administrators' how-to guide.

Bureaucrats are simply users with the ability to make other people admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. For lists of users who currently have these abilities, see Wikipedia:List of administrators and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats.

Procedures and guidelines

A user may be nominated to become an administrator by someone else, or the user may make the request personally. The nomination is posted on this page for 7 calendar days measured from the time of nomination. During this period, members of the community may comment on the nomination and vote to support or oppose it. At the end of the 7-day period, if there is general community support for the nomination, a bureaucrat will make the nominee an admin and record this fact at Wikipedia:Recently created admins. The process for bureaucrats is similar, but is generally by request only; new bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats.

Nomination. Many users become administrators by being nominated by another user. If you wish to nominate someone, get permission from them first. Along with the nomination, please give some reasons as to why you think this person would make a good administrator. (The nominator may also vote to support the nomination.)
Self-nomination. If you wish to become an administrator, you can ask someone to nominate you, or you can make the request yourself. Be aware that some people scrutinize self-nominations more closely, because they don't already have a community member vouching for them; as a result, you may want to wait until you are sure that you exceed the usual guidelines.
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.

Qualifications for adminship

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.

Administrators have no special authority when interacting with other users, but because they have additional abilities, other people will generally expect them to be courteous and exercise good judgment. Wikipedians are more likely to support candidates with enough experience to evaluate these qualities and determine whether the candidate is familiar with Wikipedia policies. Many people consider the length of time a user has been contributing, as well as the number and quality of contributions.

There are no definite requirements on this, but most users seem to expect three to four months of participation and 500-1000 edits before they will seriously consider a nomination. Some users apply higher or lower requirements on a personal basis, which they are entitled to do in voting on this page.

Unsupported nominations

In some cases, a candidate will have general support but a smaller group opposing the nomination, and it may be unclear whether a consensus exists to grant adminship. If the bureaucrats are uncertain about whether there is a consensus in a particular case, they may suggest that the vote continue beyond seven days, thus giving more time to see if a consensus will develop.

If your nomination fails, it is not necessarily a permanent rejection — the community may just be suggesting that you "try again later." However, please wait a reasonable period of time before renewing a request, and make good use of the time to gain additional experience.

If a candidate is obviously unqualified (for example, has been participating for one month and made fewer than 100 edits), the nomination may be removed before the seven-day period is over. Similarly, if the candidate was rejected very recently or the voting makes it obvious that the nomination has no chance of success, it may be removed before voting is complete. Past experience has shown that continuing the discussion in these cases only fosters ill feelings, and makes it more difficult if the nominee seeks adminship later.

Note: You can see a list of past unsuccessful nominations at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Unsupported_applications.

Current nominations

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 20:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Lupo (7/0/0) Ends 00:59, 2 August 2004

User:Lupo is an encyclopedia addict and on Wikipedia since 18 Dec 2003. He has 1713 mainspace edits and 2812 edits altogether. He is active in almost all areas of Wikipedia (WP:RCP, WP:CU, WP:FAC, VfD, WP:CP, WP:SD, etc.). He got three of his new articles on Did you know (Frankfurt kitchen, Short-horned Lizard, Amerigo Vespucci), and is currently working on turning Kitchen into a featured article. A calm and reasonable editor in exchanges with other editors. He has been nominated for adminship before on 25 Mar 2004, and the main objection was the lack of experience on Wikipedia. I believe he has now enough experience and would be an excellent admin. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris. I am honored and accept this nomination. Lupo 19:23, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Chris 73 | Talk 00:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Neutrality 03:35, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Spectatrix 06:17, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
  4. "A statement of trust and appreciation." Indeed. Cribcage 06:25, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 10:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) Teached one ex-communist resident about copyright-me.Thank you.
  6. Warofdreams 12:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. Very good at maintenance. --Merovingian✍Talk 13:08, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose


Neutral


Comments

User:Snowspinner (38/1/0) Ends 17:06, 31 July 2004

A good, good, good editor. Had the unfortunate experience of coming through RfA way too early. But he's a good deal more established now. He's eager and energetic and has already delved into chores-type activities. I can't think of a single non-admin Wikipedian right now that would be better suited for adminship. 2629 edits, been registered for 3 months, 6 days. - blankfaze | (беседа!)

I accept. Snowspinner 17:18, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. blankfaze | (беседа!) 17:15, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Cribcage 17:19, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. I thought he already was an admin! Full support, of course. Neutrality 17:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. I do believe Snowspinner is a he. Either way, I support. Mike H 17:21, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
  5. It's still very early for my tastes (just above my personal minimum) but my interactions with Snowspinner convince me he'll make a fine admin. →Raul654 17:24, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Cyrius|✎ 17:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. I said I expected to support after he'd been here 3 months, and ... -- Cecropia | Talk 18:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  8. David Gerard 19:51, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC) Hell yeah.
  9. Support strongly. Arminius 20:45, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  10. -"- --Romanm 20:58, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  11. VV 22:58, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  12. Dpbsmith 23:11, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  13. Most definitely. RickK 23:23, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Starx 23:25, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  15. Couldn't agree more. Ambivalenthysteria 00:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  16. theresa knott 00:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  17. Dori | Talk 01:22, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
  18. James F. (talk) 01:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  19. About time. —No-One Jones 01:43, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  20. Hephaestos|§ 01:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  21. Yes. An exceedingly worthy Wikipedian. - Mark 01:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  22. I supported last time, so I guess I had a good reason for doing so :). anthony (see warning) 02:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  23. This guy's okay in my book. - Nat Krause 06:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  24. Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  25. Support 172 07:27, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  26. Merovingian✍Talk 09:30, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
  27. Spectatrix 18:41, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
  28. Of course he should be an administrator. He is so nice... Lst27 20:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  29. Acegikmo1 21:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  30. older≠wiser 21:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  31. --GeneralPatton 21:53, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  32. Rhymeless 22:14, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  33. Definitely. SWAdair | Talk 06:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  34. Warofdreams 12:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  35. - JCarriker 13:07, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
  36. Darn. I wanted to be one of your top 3 supporters. Missed first post, I guess. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 13:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  37. Michael Snow (no relation) 18:16, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  38. Support, just because I don't want to be in the same group as Avala; fractured logic like that could be contagious. j/k, snowspinner's great. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:47, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 10:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) - You have support of the GP, who calls other users "cunts", and uses fascist abbrevations. It is outrageous and I can`t get over it. My vote can still turn to yes but not under any condition, I am very sad to vote no because of third party, but I am affraid that users like GP will be able to continue with such behavior. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 10:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • This very well may be the dumbest, dumbest, dumbest vote I've ever seen on RfA. Vote on the candidate's merit, not that of the people supporting him... blankfaze | (беседа!) 11:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I don`t want to be in the same group with such people as GP. And please don`t call my votes - dumb. We have no personal attacks policy in here.Avala 12:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but that vote is dumb. If you don't want to be in the same group, then just don't vote at all! Voting against someone on account of something they have absolutely no control over and that relates in no way to their potential to be a good admin... makes you look like an 8-year-old. blankfaze | (беседа!) 12:52, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Just utterly baffled here. a) Who is GP? b) What actions, exactly, would you have wished and expected Snowspinner to take? Not taking sides, just puzzled. Dpbsmith 13:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • To answer your first question, Dpbsmith, I think "GP" means GeneralPatton. --Merovingian✍Talk 13:19, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
            • On b) It looks like you are asking the question to blankfaze but presumably you mean avala. Pcb21| Pete 10:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll second the opinion that your vote is dumb. (A personal attack would be calling you dumb.) It's unfortunate you can't muster the maturity to separate one user's behavior from another's reputation -- but it's not surprising, reviewing your history. Glass houses, pal. Cribcage 18:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, I, for one, am glad. I think George Washington should be the only American to have the honor of being elected unanimously. Waitamminit, is Snowspinner even American at all? Rats, I should have asked him that before I voted! - Nat Krause 10:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if I care to respond:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
A. Yes.
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?
A. Yes. Hell, I already do some of those chores. Now I can just speedily delete things myself instead of having to tag them and wait for someone else to do it. :)
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.
A. I watch recent changes for vandal updates and either revert or tag them for speedy deletion. I intend to continue this. I track vandalizing users and report them frequently to ViP. I intend to continue this, and also to monitor ViP for reports that need to be dealt with.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. At the moment, I'm pretty proud of 2004 Tour de France. I would be proud of Michel Foucault, but I got distracted before I really finished work on it. Oh, and Video game theory is pretty spiffy, though also in need of expansion. (Yes, I confess, I have a bad habit of writing half of an article before flitting off to some other task. But I really like the halves of articles I write!)
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. Wikipedia:What is a troll. It didn't pass, and I'm sympathetic to people who say it needs more work (I intend to put that work in once the vote ends), but I think it's a great start towards a real problem.
6. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
A. Heteronormativity. I tried to settle a dispute between some users and wound up basically pouring gasoline on the fire, leaving the article still a mess. I should have stayed a bit cooler, and couched my objections in existant Wikipedia policies like verifiability. Big learning experience. Snowspinner 17:27, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks and good luck! -- Snowspinner 17:27, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

There is one condition for my support. Could you give up of support (he supported you earlier) of User:GeneralPatton who called me "cunt", then he said "I will shit on your kings picture" etc. He used abbrevation ZDS of Ustasha movement, the fascist movement. Only thing I ask to give up of him and similar users to show that you are an example of dealing with such users and that you are ready to become an admin. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 20:13, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am uninterested in doing favors in return for support, for obvious reasons, however, to make clear, I have never supported personal attacks, and, in fact, actively oppose them, including GeneralPatton's attacks to Avala, as well as Avala's hostile responses. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and there is no excuse for them. Snowspinner 20:21, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Favor? I just wanted to make things clear. I will be neutral for the next few days to see the situation and then I will decide. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 20:26, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it's none of my business, but I'm curious since you announced it: What does "to see the situation" mean? Is it basically, "I like to follow the pack -- so if there's a consensus, that's how I'll vote"? Cribcage 06:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For everybody's reference, the previous (failed) RfA can be found at [1]. Snowspinner 22:30, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

User:Andris (10/0/0) Ends 12:55, 29 July 2004

A careful editor, and calm and reasonable in exchanges with other editors. A solid contributor. About 1500 non-minor edits since March 1, 2004. Wile E. Heresiarch 12:55, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I feel honoured and accept. Andris 13:21, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Wile E. Heresiarch 12:55, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. --H. CHENEY 16:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Neutrality 21:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. Merovingian✍Talk 02:53, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Charles Matthews 02:38, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. Cribcage 17:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. Lst27 20:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  8. Seems to have a sound edit history -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:57, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  9. ditto. --Woggly 09:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  10. 172 09:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)Excellent work on a number of articles relating to Russia and Eastern Europe in particular

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
A. Yes, just now, but I found out I knew most of content from other policy pages.
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?
A. Yes.
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.
A. I already check recent changes and new pages regularly and I would keep doing that, using the new sysop powers. I might also help with maintaining WP:VFD and Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. It's hard for me to pick one of my contributions over the rest. I wrote List of political parties in Latvia and most of articles on individual parties linked from there. I have also contributed to some mathematics and computer science articles. Young tableau is probably my best contribution in that area.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. Two contributions. First, I have categorized about 500 articles, almost all of Category:Latvia and a fair part of Category:Chess. Second, I have fixed about 100 or so Deadend pages and misspelled links.
6. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
A. No major regrets so far. Andris 14:49, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks and good luck! -- Cecropia | Talk 19:04, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Ed g2s (14/0/0) Ends 03:07, 29 July 2004

Joined in August 2003; a couple of thousand edits, about three quarters of which have been in the mainspace; has contributed quite a few photos, diagrams, &c., as well as general copyediting and so on; even attended the first ever wikimeet. Disclaimer: Personal friend. James F. (talk) 02:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Accepts, honoured. Ed g2s 03:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. James F. (talk) 02:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Neutrality 03:29, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Merovingian✍Talk 06:23, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Yes. Acegikmo1 07:08, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Warofdreams 10:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 12:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. --H. CHENEY 16:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  8. Cribcage 17:21, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  9. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 20:23, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC) -Thanks again for picture editing
  10. anthony (see warning) 02:22, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  11. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 19:34, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC) Good work in the Cricket page.
  12. Lst27 20:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  13. Michael Snow 18:15, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  14. 172 09:38, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) (regarding James F.'s disclaimer, I strongly support the idea of a Clare College, Cambridge cabal on Wikipedia)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Plus a dozen odd from when I wasn't logged in (User:81.86.146.159) (for the very curious). Ed g2s 03:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
A. Yes, a while ago and .... just now.
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?
A. Sadly, I have far too much free time at the moment, so yes, see below.
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.
A. My two favourite pages are Random Page and Recent Chagnes, so I come across a lot of vandalism. It would be nice to be able to deal with it myself.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. Euro 2004, London Underground tube line images, I created the football kit template used on hundreds of football club websites, lots of photos/diagrams/image cleanups, see User:Ed_g2s/Images, far too many edits to random pages, and lots of templates.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. Not hugely into categorisation, yet. Lots of edits to pages that look ugly, creating templates, fixing layouts, using image boxes. Oh, and chasing up image copyright info.
6. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
A. Not playing with the mediawiki code.
Вопрос 7: Do you promise to always use proper British English, never the corruption that is American English?
Hey! Ya tawkin' tuh me, Limey? Dere's nobuddy else heer but yoo and me. Ya tawkin' tuh me? -- Cecropia | Talk
LMAO. blankfaze | (беседа!)

User:Thue (14/0/0) Ends 22:31, 28 July 2004

About 1000 edits in main namespace since August 2003. A careful editor, and calm and rational in exchanges with other editors. Someone I consider a solid contributor. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm honored :). I accept the nomination. Thue | talk 23:07, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Neutrality 22:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Rhymeless 04:08, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. Merovingian✍Talk 06:24, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. --H. CHENEY 16:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:45, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)
  7. :-) Mike H 00:34, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Cribcage 17:22, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  9. Woggly 07:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  10. Lst27 20:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  11. Arminius 21:48, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  12. SWAdair | Talk 06:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  13. Michael Snow 18:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  14. Diberri | Talk 19:30, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose


Neutral

Comment

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
A. Yep. I have also checked out the sysop functions while playing with the mediawiki software on my own computer.
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?
A. I plan to have a look at the mediawiki code at some point, so that will take priority over committing to do a sysop chore on a regular basis. (I am thinking of integrating the wikipedia:new pages patrol functionality of saying "I reviewed this edit" into special:newpages and maybe special:recentchanges)
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.
A. I often watch the new pages part of recent changes, I think I will keep doing that. It is quite possible that I will do some maintainance at WP:VFD, WP:CP or vandalism if either thing needs doing.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. I think I did a good job of writing the synopsis of The Little Mermaid. Almost a stub, but Cell chip is also a nice reference.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. I have spend a good deal of time watching special:newpages: copyediting, expanding, vfd'ing and watching for copyright problems. Fx I caught Gatch gereftani the other day, what looks like an example of false information.
6. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
A. No big regrets come to mind.
Thanks and good luck! -- Cecropia | Talk 23:01, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! Thue | talk 00:10, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Вопрос 7: Do you promise to always use proper British English, never the corruption that is American English?
I think the wikipedia policy in the style guide of using the right spelling in the right context is sensible. Thue | talk 09:27, 22 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.


Requests for bureaucratship

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


Other requests
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=4869210"