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 Warofdreams (talk | contribs) at 14:29, 16 August 2004 (→[[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless]] (14/1/0) Ends 14:48, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC): attribute my vote, made while logged out). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Requests for adminship (not to be confused with requests for arbitration at WP:RFAr) is a page to nominate yourself or others to become a Wikipedia administrator, also known as "sysop". Admins have access to a few technical features that help with Wikipedia maintenance. Please see the reading list and how-to guide before applying here. For current admins, see the list of administrators; for users who were recently made administrators, see recently created admins.

Rules

Administrator status is granted liberally to known and trusted members of the community who are familiar with Wikipedia policies. Administrators have no special authority on Wikipedia, but are held to higher standards. Because admins have been confirmed by the community as trusted editors, they are perceived by many, particularly new, users as the official face of Wikipedia. Therefore they should take care to be courteous, exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with other users. Nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities before adminship will be granted. Most new administrators have at least three to four months of participation and 500-1000 edits.

If you wish to nominate someone, get their permission and then give reasons on this page as to why they would make a good administrator. You can nominate yourself, but the number and quality of your contributions may be scrutinised more closely if you do this so it is advisable to exceed usual expectations before doing so. Nominations will remain for seven days so the community can vote and comment on the application. Bureaucrats may choose to extend this where the consensus is unclear. Nominations which are clearly not going to gain sufficient support may be removed earlier to prevent the discussion causing ill feelings, which can make it more difficult for the nominee to seek adminship later. However, keep in mind that most editors don't visit Wikipedia daily, so reasonable amount of time should be allowed. Some people disagree with removing any nominees from this page, on the grounds that it is censorship. If your nomination is rejected, perhaps because you are too new or inexperienced, please wait a reasonable period of time before applying again.

Vote in the appropriate lists and optionally add a short comment. Don't discuss other people's votes in the vote list itself. If you want to comment on other people's votes or comments, please do that in the Comments section below every nomination.

Please note that anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or vote.

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 17:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality (26/10/2) Ends 02:49, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

~5,000 edits. [1] since 5/15/04. Neutrality has now been here for three months. Yet, the scope of his contributions are typical of users who have been here for a couple of years. Also a member of the mediation committee. [2] Few candidates are nearly as qualified at the time of their nominations. 172 02:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I accept the nomination, but I want to note one thing. Many people look upon adminship as a title and an inherent indication of influence and power. I don't believe that. I subscribe to the view that sysops are simply "Wiki-janitors" - those that have such dedication to the wiki that they do those mundane chores that are required to keep Wikipedia's cogs moving. So I don’t really plan to do anything particularly exotic with sysop powers – just chores, mostly. Neutrality 02:58, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. 172 02:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Gamaliel 02:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Rhymeless 02:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Gzornenplatz 02:57, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  5. JCarriker 03:05, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Strongly support. blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:13, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. Acegikmo1 03:54, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:04, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. Everyking 11:54, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. Merovingian✍Talk 12:53, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  11. David Gerard 12:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  12. Danny 12:58, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. pir 13:34, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) Fully support. Good point about "Wiki-janitors".
  14. Ambi 13:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  15. Johnleemk | Talk 14:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) Yet another "I can't believe (s)he's not a sysop!
  16. Infrogmation 17:19, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  17. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:11, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  18. Kevin Baas | talk 21:11, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
  19. I've seen nothing but good from this individual. -- Grunt (talk) 23:39, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
  20. Shard 00:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • This user has 24 edits and has been here since Jul 26, and nearly of his edits are to "meta" pages. Prob sock puppet. VV 02:14, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  21. GeneralPatton 00:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  22. Antandrus 01:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  23. Mark 01:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  24. Lan3y - Talk 02:09, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  25. Markalexander100 03:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  26. Defending yourself is only what should be expected. Andre 07:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Guanaco 04:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Noisy 08:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. User:Timothy001 15 August 2004 "I object to his becoming an administrator. As it is now he has deleted legit. articles Pro-Life and Pro-Choice twice and made them re-directs. I think articles should be more important than re-directs when they have information to add on subjects. He would continue to abuse his power as a system admin. I don't think he is ready to be an admin."
    I object to taking this vote seriously. The user has less than fifteen edits, all of which were on abortion. As far me "deleting legit. articles" — I simply returned poorly written, inherently POV articles back to the proper redirects, (to Morality and legality of abortion), which was the status quo. Neutrality 21:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI, this voting user has 15 edits as of 15 August 2004.
  4. VV 21:36, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) Until this user develops a better understanding of Wikipedia's neutrality policies and working with other editors, clearly oppose. He had been involved in chronic edit wars on several pages in only the last few days, usually provoked by repeated reversion of others' edits with little cause and also due to a clear political bias. (I also want to add something about N's judgement. See, e.g., this revert, part of a long war, in particular the edit summary he uses to justify it. VV 03:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    I'd like to note that VV has held a grudge aganist me from the day I arrived here, and forced me to file a RfC aganist him due to his lack of respect for consensus at all. Neutrality 21:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    "My wife forced me to kill her." The source of this supposed "grudge" was Neutrality repeatedly reverting me at FOX News with only dismissive comments. I tried very hard to work with him, both on the Talk page there and User talk:Neutrality, but to no avail. VV 21:52, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Actually, Fox News had nothing to do with the dispute; the matter was actually George W. Bush, where VV continued to revert not only me, but at least three others, aganist voted consensus. Neutrality 21:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    It's precisely this sort of lack of conciliation that is my reason for opposition. Noisy 23:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Taco Deposit 22:30, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI, this voting user has 142 edits 15 August 2004.
    As I asked on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Michael_Moore_Hates_America, how many edits do you feel a user must have before his vote should be counted? Please stop trying to disenfranchise me. Taco Deposit 12:42, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • But has been here since Apr 18. VV 02:16, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Rex071404 23:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) There is currently an Arbitration case pending, in which Neutrality is named as both a complainant and a respondant [3]. As strongly as I can possibly say, I feel that Neutrality is not qualified for Admin. Should he attain that role now, it would I feel, bring discredit on and loss of respect for, the title of Admin. Please be advised that at the begining of that Arb case, Neutrality took the extremely inappropriate step of actually deleting my facts from the case page! He was strongly reprimanded by Fred Bauder for that. Also, Neutrality has an Rfc [4] pending against him for the misleading nature of his user name. Also, Neutrality recently reverted me 9 times on one article in one day John Kerry and when I opposed him on that article over time, I was the one who got banned from editing it! Neutrality also has his fingerprints all over the squabbling at George_W._Bush. Neutrality recently used vulgar language against me and just now today, taunted me on my talk page (an entry which I deleted). He constantly reverts people with false and misleading edit summaries. He refuses to dialog. And he quite obviously holds grudges. Rex071404 23:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    This vote is invalid. I object to taking this vote seriously. Just the facts, ma'am:
    Question: what wikipedia policy supports your assertion that "this vote is invalid"? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    The vote is not officially invalid in the sense of "explicitly should not be counted," but common sense says the vote is essentially meaningless with regards to determining consensus. Perhaps "invalid" is not the best word to use. Neutrality 00:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Perhaps this would be a good time to mention that beaurocrats (as was decided by the beaurocrat poll) are entitled to give RFA votes whatever heed they want - they can ignore votes if they so choose. →Raul654 01:03, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
    I trust every current bureaucrat and their judgement, and I truly mean that. Neutrality 01:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    I'd like to encourage bureaucrats to disregard votes by any user with less than 200 edits and a month under his/her belt, as I strongly suspect sockpuppetry, and grudge voting at the minimum, by several of the users voting to oppose. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Such a blanket policy is an extremely bad idea. There are actually some legit new users. Decisions on validity of votes should be done individually for each voter. — Kate | Talk 01:13, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
    I agree with Kate. By the way, I notice nobody seems to be in such a tearing hurry to declare Shard's vote to support invalid. --Michael Snow 01:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Ah, I just made a note of that myself. Also, Shard had opposed me on RfC as his sixth edit to Wikipedia. VV 02:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Regardless of whatever the policy is for counting votes, I'd advise everyone to take Rex's retaliatory comments with a shaker of salt. He got himself banned and refuses to take responsibility for his behavior. Gamaliel 01:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    You mean like when Rex said "My inter-editor comments conduct has improved greatly in the last few days. I have been chastened by Snowspinner and have improved myself as a result." Sounds to me like he's taking responsibility for the behavior that got him banned. VV 02:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Just because he said that doesn't mean it is true. He posted that comment before he was banned from editing and before he engaged in an edit war over a minor point in grammar. His behavior before and after that comment is not noticably different. He continues to blame what has happened on the supposed pro-Kerry bias of the arbitration committee, other editors, and Neutrality in particular instead of on his own behavior. Gamaliel 03:28, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Did he engage in this "edit war over a minor point in grammar" by himself? VV 03:36, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    He managed to insult me and a half dozen editors repeatedly over the course of over two weeks all by himself. Gamaliel 04:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. I wasn't going to vote on this matter, but Neutrality's conduct on this page worries me greatly. All of us encounter opposition to our views, some if it from users who many find turbulent. The views of all non-banned, non-sock puppet users count equally, and Neutrality's belief that common sense dictates against counting Rex071404's vote doesn't square well either with policy or my sense of fair play. I've had my run-ins with VV myself, but VV's opinion counts too, whether or not VV has a "grudge" against anyone. It appears that Neutrality is intent on having the last word with his/her critics, which often isn't the best strategy toward ensuring long-term wikipeace. Lastly, it's important that the record of discussions such as this be as accurate as possible, and even subtle changes such as this edit make me uncomfortable (I'm fine with strikeouts, however). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:19, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Zocky 01:36, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC): Oppose because of behaviour on this page (challenging other people's votes in the vote list itself, instead of commenting on them under comments, among other things).
  9. Please no. Just because someone makes a lot of edits does not qualify a person to become a “sysops” user. I have seen some of Neutrality’s not so neutral edits and I do not think he should get anymore power than what he has now. He goes around deleting pages and makes them re-directs for no other reason then his personal bias. Just his idiotic responses to anyone who votes against him proves that he is not up to the position. Also, since he claims he is not interested in power in his inflated egotistical gabfest of an acceptance speech and that he only wants to be a Wiki-janitor doing mundane tasks, he doesn’t need anymore authority to do that. He should stay as is until he can respect other peoples contributions and grow up a little bit. User:Pitchka 16 Aug 2004 (Removing obvious sockpuppet vote. 172 03:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    It is not necessarily the large number of Neutrality's edits that proves his ability to manage admin responsibilities, but rather the quality of those edits and evidence of both his strong competence and dedication to the project. Please see for yourself and take a look at the following list of articles on which he has made substantial contributions: Democrats Abroad, Charles Graner, El Cid, Scott Turow, Caprivi, Quebec Bridge, Spessard Holland, FleetCenter, Agnes Macphail, Francis P. Fleming, Henry L. Mitchell, Calvin and Hobbes, and (my favorite) United States Army Air Force. And, to a lesser extent: Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Ruth Ann Minner, Wesley Clark, Bristol, Rhode Island, DCCC, Papal election, and List of West Virginia state prisons. 172 03:49, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    User has 76 edits. Likely a sockpuppet of Timothy001, given that they edit the same pages and both have the same userpage pattern (e.g., the entire content of Timothy001 userpage is "Timothy T. = The Man," and the entire content of Pitchka's userpage is "Pitchka = Little Bird." Neutrality 03:14, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Agree. Pitchka's (aka Timothy001's) sockpuppet vote needs to be removed. 172 03:49, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. I'd like to wait a few more months until I support Neutrality. At least because of editing disputes I have seen him in, and because of his assertions that votes are invalid (lemme guess, mine is too?) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. Oppose due to nominee's conduct during this vote. Cribcage 13:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Not really sure about the nominee's eagerness to pronounce votes invalid. — Kate | Talk 00:51, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
  2. I have had limited experience with this user, however the experience I have had with him, in the John Kerry article leads me to believe that he would not use his new found powers responsibly, since he hasn't used the powers he currently has responsibly. Until he can show a little more restrant, I can not support him becoming an admin. — マイケル ₪ 04:25, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • From what I've seen, Neutrality seems like the type of user who would make a responsible admin, so I've voted my support. However I'm not fond of the user name "Neutrality", which IMO sounds even less apropriate for an admin than a contributor. -- Infrogmation 17:19, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've been thinking about changing it. Give me a week or so. Neutrality 18:47, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Image:Nixon Agnes.JPG and Image:Operation_Market_Garden.jpg should be deleted. The rest I have just supplied source and licensing information for. Neutrality 21:04, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. Gdr 22:00, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

Preemptive respond to questions:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
A. Twice.
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. I am here nearly everyday, and I have a good working knowledge of Wikipedia’s important functions.
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. Most likely RC patrol, 24-hour blocking vandals. Perhaps helping out with speedy deletions, etc. And I’ll do cleanup and mark stubs and categorize, which I do anyway. I'll also watch WP:RFPP.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. Unsure as to one specific article, but here’s a few I did heavy work on: Democrats Abroad, Charles Graner, El Cid, Scott Turow, Caprivi, Quebec Bridge, Spessard Holland, FleetCenter, Agnes Macphail, Francis P. Fleming, Henry L. Mitchell, Calvin and Hobbes, and (my favorite) United States Army Air Force. And, to a lesser extent: Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Ruth Ann Minner, Wesley Clark, Bristol, Rhode Island, DCCC, Papal election, and List of West Virginia state prisons.
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’ve done a lot of grunt work categorizing articles, most notably Category:Awards and decorations of the U.S. military, Category:Rivers, and Category:Olympics. In the future I want to complete Category:Terrorist organizations. I’m also on the Mediation Committee, and am learning a lot about mediation.
6. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
AYes, I have, and I think that gives me a unique perspective as opposed to someone who never conflicts with other users. On several occasions I simply left the article and worked on others — after all, the Wiki has thousands of articles, and it’s always regrettable when any user gets emotionally involved in articles. Conflict that is impossible to resolve and that will cause irreparable harm to an article is very rare, but it regrettably has happened to me and others on one article. The matter currently is in arbitration.
it’s always regrettable when any user gets involved in articles. Typo? Markalexander100 04:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it's a typo. I meant emotionally involved. :) Thanks for catching it. Neutrality 04:08, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rhymeless (14/1/0) Ends 14:48, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A careful editor with diverse interests. Reserved and thoughtful in exchanges with other editors. About 1600 edits since April 2004. Someone I consider a solid contributor. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I accept this nomination. Rhymeless 19:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Neutrality 15:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Merovingian✍Talk 21:21, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Hard-working contributor with a good deal of experience. He may only have registered four months ago, but that does not preclude him from adminship. And, anyone who makes 1600 edits in four months' time definitely seems devoted to me. --Slowking Man 22:48, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Geogre 02:23, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. 172 03:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. Lucky 6.9 03:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Acegikmo1 03:54, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. Guanaco 04:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. I can't see any issues with his becoming an admin. -- Grunt (talk) 23:42, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
  11. Stormie 02:29, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Andre 07:28, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. Strongly support. Ambi 09:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. Warofdreams 14:29, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. But would probably support at a later date, with more edits. blankfaze | (беседа!) 19:17, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • Oppose. This is almost certainly a sock puppet account of User:Mike Church. Metric Dollar 18:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    And Metric Dollar is almost certainly a sock puppet account of one of Mike Church's enemies. Guanaco 19:06, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    I doubt it. It's probably a sock puppet of Mike himself. Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to call him a straw man. Isomorphic 22:06, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Does Mike Church edit from AOL? This user does. Guanaco 01:21, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Wow, I've been called a lot of things, but never a sock puppet of Mike Church. You think I'd be the first to know. In all seriousness, if you have any proof at all, I'd be interested to see it. Rhymeless 20:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you would kindly 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.
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. Likely VFD and newpages, I should spend more time on cleanup as well.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. I'm not as sure on this one. Perhaps Australian Museum or Bill Veeck. Recently I've been trying to add some basic information to the Rambot city/town pages, working partially from a desk encyclopedia.
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 really haven't encountered vandals as much; or rather, people seem to find them quicker than I do. I've done some work with cleanup and disambiguation pages.
6. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. Most of the articles I've worked on have been rather non-controversial. Had a few minor disagreements on VFD, but these were solved quickly.
Thanks and good luck!

ContiE (11/0/0) Ends 3:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I had the pleasure of working with ContiE to drastically improve Continuum (computer game). After doing some research on his contributions, I discovered that he has been a Wikipedian since May 2003, and has almost 3000 edits. I am impressed by his attention to detail, his neutrality, and his willingness to do messy tasks like Wikifying pages and cleaning up redirects and disambiguation pages. I feel that ContiE would make an excellent admin and an asset to the Wikipedia community. ContiE has accepted this nomination. --Slowking Man 03:10, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

I accept the nomination. --Conti|✉ 04:12, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Merovingian✍Talk 05:44, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  2. blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:18, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Definitely support! -- orthogonal 09:23, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Strongly support. Neutrality 14:58, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support.Arminius 22:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Absolutely. • Benc • 22:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. Gzornenplatz 23:33, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Acegikmo1 03:54, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. Guanaco 04:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. I smell a grunt worker.. excellent candidate for adminship. -- Grunt (talk) 23:44, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
  11. Looking over the contribs, I see nothing bad & lots of good. Stormie 02:36, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  12. What Stormie said. Zocky 03:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. Andre 07:29, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose


Neutral


Comments 2753 edits as of this time. -- Grunt (talk) 23:19, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you would kindly 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. I think I will spend more time on WP:VFD and WP:CP when I'll become an admin, to help (and delete/redirect/merge) when needed.
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 look through recent changes regularly for suspicious edits and vandalism, mark articles as stubs, wikify them etc.. Reverting vandalism quickly will be a very handy tool for me. I also will visit votes for deletion and copyright problems more frequently as I mentioned above.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. I almost solely do minor chores like wikifying articles, fixing links and reverting vandalism. My biggest work in this respect was to sort the people in Category:People (and its subcategories) by their surname.
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. See above. Also, a while ago I came across an anon I now call the "sneaky vandal guy", who adds sneaky vandalism to a few sites. I now have these articles in my watchlist and do a fact check everytime an anon adds something to one of these articles. Some vandalism was in these articles for weeks before I removed it.
6. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. Yes. I have been in a little conflict about the category Birmingham, England. In my opinion, the category is overcategorized, the creator of the category disagrees strongly though. I've put this case to request for comment after no consensus was reached and now started a poll on which articles should be removed from the category. In the future I'll ask at RFC first when I can't reach any consensus on my own, I think it is a good way to get some neutral opinions.

Thanks and good luck!

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

Bureaucrats are simply users with the ability to make other people admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats.

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=5239920"