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 Lst27 (talk | contribs) at 22:52, 3 September 2004 (===CyborgTosser (3/3/3) Ends 07:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)=== - neutral). 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 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 more than 1000 edits. 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.

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. 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 a reasonable amount of time should be allowed. Some people believe all nominations should be allowed to run their course, and disagree with having them removed early. 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 09:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Academic Challenger (1/0/0) Ends 22:36, 10 Sep 2004 (UVC)

Academic Challenger has been with us since mid-November 2003 and has done invaluable expansion work on many of Wikipedia's articles on political figures across the world. He also is a prolific article creator, and has proved himself to be fair and even-tempered. I know the community can trust him to be a sysop. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. In my experience, an excellent contributor, and one whose edit count is not an accurate indication of the level of contribution to this site. Should be a good admin, if not a proactive one, methinks. Jwrosenzweig 22:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Kate (30/1/0) Ends 01:43, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Lady formerly known as Lysine Ikinsile, now operating under the more prosaic name of Kate Turner, knows very well that adminship is not "an important and ponderous privilege", but simply a technical capability that allows people to do more housekeeping more easily. Having learned my lesson from trying to count up Gtrmp's contributions, I didn't even bother with Kate because I know she has nearly as many edits if not more (despite having been here only since early June, if I recall). She is always courteous and has a talent for looking to find agreement even when people are at loggerheads. I see no reason for the community not to entrust her with the keys to the janitor's closet. --Michael Snow 01:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I accept, thank you. For the record, I have 11,940 edits since June 6, but the vast majority are menial cleanup tasks: I'd estimate I have about 1,500–2,000 "normal" edits. — Kate Turner | Talk 01:49, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Michael Snow 01:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Sean Curtin 01:46, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Mike H 01:46, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Antandrus 01:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Strong support! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Can't think of a better admin. — David Remahl 01:51, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. RedWolf 01:58, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  8. My interactions with Kate have been very positive and productive (well, she was productive).-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. Guanaco 02:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. Dysprosia 02:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) Yes! For sure.
  11. Quite the witty gal this one is, and a diligent worker to boot. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:14, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  12. GeneralPatton 02:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. —No-One Jones 02:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. Most definitely. Kate's understanding of the responsibilities of a sysop -- and the limits of sysop power -- are right on target. -- orthogonal 02:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  15. David Cannon 03:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) I support you, Kate. It would be nice, though, if I could see your face and not merely the back view:-)
  16. Most certainly. ugen64 03:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Snowspinner 03:34, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC) Duh.
  18. Yes. I feel she would make a good sysop. - Mark 03:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  19. One of the most excellent contributors I've seen in a while. Diligent, dedicated, fair, and a whole bunch of other positive adjectives. --Slowking Man 05:05, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  20. [[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 05:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC): She's not a sysop already?
  21. PFHLai 05:10, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
  22. Danny 05:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  23. 172 06:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  24. VV 07:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  25. Kim Bruning 07:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) NO FAIR! Someone beat me to nominating Kate. :-P
  26. Conti|✉ 11:31, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  27. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:34, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
  28. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:25, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  29. Few people work as hard as she does; she runs a mailing list and made many thousands of edits to fix external links headers. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 18:02, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
  30. Support: Kate has been very helpful in redirecting all the cricket (sport) disambigs to cricket. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 21:05, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. — i386 | Talk 17:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

For a while in there, Kate was editing as an IP - has she returned to using her username? Snowspinner 02:06, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yes - at least I think (hope) I can manage to avoid the things that annoy me and still edit as a user. I may need to do some anonymous recovery from time to time, though :-) — Kate Turner | Talk 02:10, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

How many times will I see my "important and ponderous privilege" line parroted on Rfa? ;) I still stand by it, however. Adminship is the privilege of carrying out the community's wishes; ergo, adminship is important because admins are trusted with the responsibility of performing the duties necessary to implement the community's will, such as bans and deletions. --Slowking Man 05:05, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I had forgotten who wrote the phrase originally, I only remembered that Kate reused it later, in the same fashion I did. It's all in how you look at privileges. In the sense you mean, that adminship privileges are "important and ponderous" and must be handled with great care and good judgment, the same way you would treat a precious vase, the phrase has its merits. I'm afraid we've coopted it for another purpose, which is to remind ourselves that in spite of having a few additional technical facilities at their disposal, admins are not "important and ponderous" people with a privileged position in Wikipedia society, but have the same standing as all other members of the community. Ultimately, we're getting at the same thing, which is that admins exist to serve the good of Wikipedia as a whole. --Michael Snow 05:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gtrmp (17/0/0) Ends 01:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The unpronounceable Gtrmp, also known as Sean Curtin, has a whopping total of over 11,000 edits (no typo) since 19 Jan 2004. He has shown that he's familiar with Wikipedia policy and communicates in a very reasonable fashion when handling any disagreements. With these qualities, I think he makes an excellent candidate for adminship. --Michael Snow 01:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I accept the nomination. -Sean Curtin 01:45, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Why he hasn't been nominated already is beyond my comprehension. --Michael Snow 01:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Strong agreement. Mike H 01:27, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely. —Stormie 01:31, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Antandrus 01:52, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. YES! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. GeneralPatton 02:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. —No-One Jones 02:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. PFHLai 05:11, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
  9. Danny 05:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. Does plenty of important work with categories, Vfd, and such, as evidenced by his edit history. --Slowking Man 05:17, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  11. [[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 05:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC): Not only an impressive amount of contributions, but it seems like he's fairly involved with VfD also- I believe he would surely be a trustworthy asset as a sysop!
  12. 172 07:00, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. Of course. Everyking 11:05, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. Gzornenplatz 11:31, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Definitely. Bishonen 16:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  16. support. Scottbeck 21:59, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  17. support Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

TheCustomOfLife (aka Mike H) (51/2/1) Ends 02:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mike is an invaluable contributor with more than 7,000 edits and 300 articles started in the ~3 months he's been here. He is very good natured, and contributes well to the community in general. We would all benefit from his being an administrator. — Grunt 🇪🇺 02:20, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

It's simply an honor to nominate Mike. There is nothing more to say. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Consider this a joint nomination; I guess we both wanted to nominate him at the same time. :) — Grunt 🇪🇺 02:34, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll accept the (joint!) nomination. Mike H 02:35, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Of course. — Grunt 🇪🇺 02:20, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
  2. STRONGEST SUPPORT EVER. More than 7,000 edits and 300 articles to his name in less than three months. One of the best contributors to come through Wikipedia in a while. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Edit history looks good. Talked with him, too. I support. CryptoDerk 02:30, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Definitely. To the extent that Wikipedia is a soap opera, what better man to document it. For those not getting the joke, Mike has tirelessly documented almost the entire US soap opera sub-culture, and to a great extent, has done so with succumbing to the temptation to "break-out" irrelevances that we see in some other popular culture subjects. — orthogonal 02:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. EXCELLENT. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. I also support Mike's evil twin brother Hank, who (when he regains his lost memory and returns from Darkest Peru, intending to frame Mike for his own murder) would also make an excellent (if evil) admin. — Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Hahaha Finlay, you are by far the funniest kid ever to set foot in Wikipedia. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. Good edits, good articles, good person. I've been talking to him a lot recently. Good soap opera edits. Maybe if I revamp ATWT I could have a similar honor... ;) Lockeownzj00 02:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Absolutely. — Diberri | Talk 03:11, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  9. [[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 03:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC): Of course. This is an overdue nomination.
  10. Absolutely, unquestionably and enthusiastically support. I cannot adequately express my enthusiasm about this guy. Mike is a responsible, knowledgeable, hard-working and highly motivated user. He's also one helluva nice person who cares deeply about this project, its people and its success. We need more Mikes! — Lucky 6.9 03:38, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. Certainly. He would use it responsibly and politely. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:54, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
  12. For sure. —Stormie 05:44, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Speaking as one of the only real wikipedia contributors to have had a conflict with Mike (over what was essentially an administrative misunderstanding), I feel that I am uniquely qualified to say that I support his nomination with no reservations whatsoever. In his time here he has proven himself to be a prolific contributor and will no doubt be a great administrator with the best intentions for Wikipedia at all times. Congrats Mike!. — DropDeadGorgias (talk) 05:47, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Very much so. RickK 05:49, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  15. To beat the Rfa cliche further into the ground, "He isn't an admin already?" — Slowking Man 05:50, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  16. PFHLai 06:14, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
  17. Strong support. Ambi 06:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  18. What they said. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 07:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  19. I have not greater pleasure than to endorse the nomination of Mike. A perfect user; expert in his field, polite, cooperative and humourous. Mintguy (T) 08:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  20. Dedicated editor - will be good admin JFW | T@lk 11:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  21. GeneralPatton 13:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  22. Jwrosenzweig 14:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) I opposed Mike H's first nomination over fears about his ability to control his temper and to handle disputes reasonably. I am very pleased to say those fears have proven groundless, or perhaps it is better to say that Mike H has adapted with remarkable skill to the Wiki Way, and I have every confidence that he will act with caution, prudence, and wisdom as an admin. Wholeheartedly support.
  23. Geogre 14:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) As every soap opera actress has said to every soap opera actor at some point in the show's run, "Yes."
  24. Tεxτurε 15:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  25. Strongly support, would make a fine admin. Arminius 20:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  26. Great contributor. Support. --Lst27 21:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Plus he has a great sense of humor. See what he wrote on the hug! section of User talk: Lucky 6.9. — Lst27 15:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  27. I give my support. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 00:25, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
  28. James F. (talk) 00:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  29. Mike was very welcoming to me and worked out a good compromise to my complaints that he wasn't including PBS in his network TV schedules. I think he will have a lot of good to contribute. kmccoy (talk) 02:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  30. Absolutely! I'm so glad he accepted the nomination. He'll be an entirely advantageous addition to the cabal. ;) — Hadal 03:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  31. 172 04:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  32. ffirehorse 07:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  33. Mike is a good guy, lacking any particularly strong opinions but perfectly trustworthy with the keys to the Closet. Austin Hair 08:03, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
  34. BCorr|Брайен 15:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  35. David Gerard 19:40, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  36. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) Woah...I forgot to add my name. Wholehardedly support. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  37. Most violently support! --mav 03:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  38. Of course yes.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 20:55, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
  39. — Kate Turner | Talk 21:03, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
  40. Antandrus 22:23, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) He's a good one. Strongly support.
  41. Michael Snow 01:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  42. I hereby declare my support for Mike H as an admin :D Sean 01:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  43. —No-One Jones 02:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  44. I suppose at this point, my vote is a mere formality... ugen64 03:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  45. So long as his uni work doesn't suffer... - Mark 03:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  46. Danny 05:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  47. Bishonen 15:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) I've been hesitating to vote because I hardly know Mike, but the edits and the golden opinions from all sorts of people on this page are impressive. I'm sure he'll be a very responsible and useful admin.
  48. oh yes! - Lan3y - Talk 17:02, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  49. a little odd, but a good guy! Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  50. Support. He's a nice guy, even though he does look down on RfA self-noms. — i386 | Talk 17:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  51. Andris 21:12, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. He wants to speedy delete perfectly legitimate stubs on no other basis than they "get on his turf" - he thinks he somehow owns the entire soap opera section of the encyclopaedia. When I removed the speedy delete tags, he told me: "I think removing these tags is really counterproductive and it aggravates me to no end. Personally, this guy is causing much trouble for me and my work and you're just aiding him. [...] I work in this section. I've written probably 100 (or more) legitimate articles on soap actors that I'm quite proud of. When I see things like this, it undermines the work I have done, and I feel like I am obligated to clean them up, to bring them up to my other articles. Sure, I don't HAVE to, but let's be honest, would you like someone shitting on things you liked to do?" I replied: "That doesn't make any sense. First of all, factual stubs are in no way "shitting". How do they undermine your work on different articles? You are not obligated at all at improving them. You're not responsible for the entire section of soap actors." Whereupon he said: "Apparently you're just not choosing to get how I feel about it, so there's no use talking about it anymore." Apparently he thinks his "feelings" should be the law of Wikipedia. Gzornenplatz 08:35, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Sorry, but the whole attitude towards substubs/stubs/ incompetent users does not befit an administrator. Scottbeck 22:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. I strongly dislike the angry warning at the top of his user talk page; no admin should have such a hostile attitude towards discussion. I also strongly disagree with the idea that the substubs are vandalism and should be speedy deleted, but since he promises not to speedy delete them until/unless consensus on the matter is reached, for now I won't oppose outright, given his impressive number of contributions. Everyking 20:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    I've reworded the statement in question. I don't have a hostile attitude towards discussion either. Mike H 22:01, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. I think the B-Movie Bandit is a very hot-button trouble user and I still stand by my objections regarding him. I also feel a lot of those quotes are personally being taken out of context in an attempt to make me look bad, but I respect your vote either way. Mike H 12:04, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
    That user is not hardbanned, so you have no right to blanket-revert his contributions. Whatever he may have done elsewhere, the stubs in question were not candidates for speedy deletion, and your argument that their existence makes you feel obligated to clean them up, but at the same time you don't want to do this, and therefore you prefer to delete them, is really not acceptable. As to quotes being taken out of context, anyone can read the whole exchange on my talk page. It doesn't speak for you either that you accuse me of attempting to make you look bad, as if my specific criticism here were just a pretext for some unrelated animosity I would have towards you - I don't. Your contributions are great, but you're too possessive of your section. Just as with Lucky 6.9, I'm not convinced at the moment that you should be given access to the delete button. Gzornenplatz 12:21, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
    I do not agree with your vote and your reasons for it but I respect it either way. Thank you. To prove that I have cleaned up substubs, see Jed Allan or Taylor Miller or Catherine Hickland, which I nominated for did you know? I have cleaned up many more; if you wish, I will go back and find the ones I've done. The first two were done by myself and the last one was with the help of RickK, who is also an aficionado of soaps. Mike H 12:23, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  1. I would also like to add that I would not speedy delete or otherwise remove any contribution from this user until a majority vote or consensus is reached. However, I will be campaigning to make a speedy delete system policy, as I feel this user is contributing in ill form and is tantamount to vandalism. So, my feelings? Don't delete now, make it policy first. Mike H 12:28, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • How did I get in the discussion? The B-Movie Bandit is about to be hard-banned. Unless you are ready, willing and able to do more than format these substubs, you're only encouraging the idiot, IMO. Please reconsider. - Lucky 6.9 17:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, "about to be" is not good enough. If and when he actually is hardbanned, his stubs can be deleted, not before. Gzornenplatz 20:07, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Gzornenplatz, if you have an ongoing dispute regarding Mike H's conduct, perhaps Wikipedia:Requests for comment would be a better place to further it, as opposed to the Rfa page. Also, I believe comments on votes belong in the below Comments section. I'm not trying to be anal-retentive or anything; I just don't like it when vote pages get horribly bloated. --Slowking Man 17:32, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
I moved the comments. Gzornenplatz 20:07, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I had a failed nomination attempt in the first part of July. I rejected the nomination, but it was evident it wasn't going to pass anyway. Someone took it down but I asked HCheney to reinstitute it so I could formally reject the nomination. You can see the attempt here. Mike H 02:22, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Also, for clarification purposes, before I started making edits to my RFA nomination, I had 7,257 edits as of late night in the eastern U.S. on August 30. Mike H 03:06, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

In case one is not familiar with the B-Movie Bandit, please see User:B-Movie Bandit for a list of contributions. Any contribution attributed with his start that is more than a substub with the format "Actor so-and-so stars on soap opera from date to date" was the work of another user. Mike H 12:23, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

My stance on why these should go: Keep in mind that I would not delete until a majority vote, consensus, or a decision to hard-ban is reached. These stubs have been dropped for months. Now they number well over one hundred, if not two. It's not that they "get on my turf" (although the quotes that ostensibly "represent" that statement are correct and are my opinions), it's that they are not much of anything. I liken them to an unrelated IP dropping a stub on Margaret Truman in which it said "That daughter of Harry S. Truman". Sure, it's factual, but so is a hypothetical article called 4 (solution) with the text being "The sum of 2 and 2".
With these soap stubs, most people who are searching for these actors have watched soaps for a number of years (or long enough to know the actors' names). Simply listing years for a TV show is information one would already know. It's too brief, completely uninformative, and hardly helpful. I am not a believer that most of these stubs will blossom into full articles, because in many cases, time has proven that they have not. That's why I feel the way I do about this issue. Again, I will not use my deletion powers to serve my own interests, as cooperation is key to a Wiki and not self-service. Mike H 19:24, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
From my observation, Mike H has been the most consistent savior of the B Movie Bandit's work. While others have either said "Every stub is sacred" and let them go after wikifying, and others still have speedy deleted them, Mike H has put in the work to save them. As someone who is as close to an expert on minor TV personalities Wikipedia has, he is also an expert editor with an informed opinion. If Mike says that an actor or actress is tangential to a show that is already minor, I take his word for it. Note that Mike has never, to my knowledge, wanted the minor figures to be deleted. He has felt personally responsible for fixing them and has only argued for speedy deletes of those that were overwhelming in number and lack of significance. (Confession: I'm of the "delete substubs" camp, but I don't think it has bearing here.) Geogre 14:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Well said. I think the fact that Mike feels a personal responsibility to these subs is laudable. I've fixed and redirected lots of these, as have others. I only adopted a more militant stance once I was convinced the Bandit wasn't going to play nice in our little cyber-sandbox. Mike's nomination should not hinge on the actions of a pest and his well-meaning attempts first to help said pest and later to stop him once we all realized that in no way was the Bandit going to answer. If we are going to set our standards so low as to allow this guy to continue his foolishness simply because what he does is factual, then perhaps we should all start dropping half-baked substubs, stand back from our computers and shout, "Voila! We have an encyclopedia!" - Lucky 6.9 17:17, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Frazzydee (35/0/0) Ends 06:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Frazzydee has been an active member of Wikipedia since 7 November 2003. He has made 1,906 edits as of August 22, 2004. I think Frazzydee should become an admin because of his diligence in pursuing candidates for speedy deletion, vandalism and possible copyright violations. He interacts well with other users, and has gotten much praise from other members of the community. Being an admin would speed up Frazzydee's ability to deal with vandalism and candidates for speedy deletion, he has already shown judgment and diligence in pursuing these issues. -Flockmeal 06:31, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thank-you very much. I gladly accept your nomination. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✎]] 06:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please note that I do not have 1,906 edits. I have 1,505 edits as of now. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 23:39, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Flockmeal 06:36, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  2. A very mature and responsible editor. Just gave me his advice on adding a new picture to Church, in fact. Strongly support. --Slowking Man 07:31, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Mike H 07:32, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  4. ffirehorse 07:41, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Merovingian✍Talk 14:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  6. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) After seeing your work with speedy delete candidates, I support.
  7. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:52, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. 172 20:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. Very responsible editor. Known him since the age of 5. Wholly deserving. Yelyos 20:59, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Lots of good work on reverting vandalism, cleaning up pages. CryptoDerk 21:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Guanaco 23:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. GeneralPatton 00:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. Pizzahunks 16:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) I think he would be a great asset to Wikipedia as an admin. He connects well with people and is willing to help.
  15. Tεxτurε 16:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  16. Oh boy, I was about to nominate him. :) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:33, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
  17. Enthusiastically support. Frazz has shown nothing but class, empathy and clear, level-headed thinking. He's also shown some real friendship. I'd vote twice if I could!! - Lucky 6.9 03:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  18. Support, even if he tried to delete my articles :) (He was right at that time) Deelkar 05:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  19. FG 05:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  20. Strongly support! -SocratesJedi 05:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  21. Already working hard on speedies. PFHLai 06:16, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
  22. Support. --Lst27 21:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  23. Hadal 03:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  24. Support, very intelligent and hardworking person from my conversations with him in private messages, Wikipedia and the #Wikipedia channel. --ShaunMacPherson 14:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  25. Geogre 14:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) Frazzy is friendly and interested in the interests of the project, not his desires.
  26. Frazzydee's honesty in correcting his edit count alone say much to recommend him. -- orthogonal 15:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  27. Another obvious support vote. Keep up the good work Frazzydee. Antandrus 23:57, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  28. Sean Curtin 01:48, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  29. Michael Snow 01:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  30. Certainly. ugen64 03:34, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  31. Danny 05:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  32. Mark 05:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  33. I can vote as well right? Not that he needs it.--Marco 13:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  34. Very smart and very friendly, who could ask for anything more? Bishonen 20:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  35. Helpful and patient with new users and our inevitable mishaps :P--Che y Marijuana 21:34, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

I just took a peek at my contributions list to see how many edits I made, and I realized that a mistake was made. My contributions list shows that I have made 1492 edits as of this writing. Of course, I will notify everybody who has voted about this unfortunate error. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 23:19, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep in mind that you probably have more, due to speedies. Yelyos 23:21, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
It seems that voting by newbies is frowned upon on these pages. If someone finds it inappropriate, please edit out my vote, or just move it to the comments section.--Che y Marijuana 22:05, Sep 3, 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.

CyborgTosser (3/3/3) Ends 07:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have been contributing for about two years now (see both my contributions and contributions for 198.37.26.168 as requests for re-attribution of edits has apparently been ignored for several months) in a wide range of topics, particularly electrical engineering, popular music, movies, and games. While the sheer number of edits may not be all that impressive (650+, or 750+ counting the anonymous edits), many of the edits are IMO very significant, including starting a large number of articles. I believe I contribute to discussions in a helpful way and do not get into disputes with other users. CyborgTosser 07:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User has 679 logged-in edits since 19 Feb 2004. The IP has 90 contributions starting 15 Sep 2002. --Michael Snow 22:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Way to go, with a self nomination. I support! — i386 | Talk 17:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. I've had a good look over your edit history and I'm pretty happy with what I see. The problem is you seem to be the sort of person who quietly gets on with editing articles rather than talking about stuff at the VP, policy pages, contraversial pages with a lot of edit warring. That's nothing wrong with that, IMO some people spend too much time on meta stuff and not enough on writing articles {I'm including myself in this group:-( } - but it does mean that people don't get to know you. Anyway from what I've seen of your edit history, I think you'll probably make a very good admin which is why I'm voting in support. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Theresa says it very well. If people would actually investigate CyborgTosser's contributions, instead of using raw edit volume as a substitute for considering whether he's actually qualified, they would find that he has already shown us that he's perfectly capable of being a good admin. --Michael Snow 22:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose for now, if you provide evidence of where you have made thewse contributions I may change my mind. As it is the 750-800 edits you have made are good, but not enough I feel. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Sorry, but I don't feel you have enough edits yet, especially for a self-nomination. --Slowking Man 19:39, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  3. No way. No way. No way. No way. Get more edits. Not sure what your username is about, but it kind-of rubs me the wrong way for some reason. Anyhow, I rarely support anyone with less than 2,000 edits. MUCH LESS 679! Plus, for a self-nomination?! No way. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Moved my vote to neutral. Still a little uneasy. Pending a review of user's contribs by me. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Not active enough. --Lst27 22:52, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

I am perturbed as to the lack of discussion on your user talk page. I won't object, though — however, would you mind linking us to some discussions in which you've participated before? Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Most of my discussions have been on article talk pages; I have added links to discussions on my user talk page.CyborgTosser 19:34, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While quality is better than quantity, the user still has only 769 edits. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and on many occasions in the past we've accepted new admins with a comparable number of edits. One relatively recent example is Robin Patterson. --Michael Snow 22:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fine...since I'm slightly clueless on this -- I'm trying to move my vote to neutral. Edit conflict :( — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:46, 3 Sep 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?
  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.
  4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
  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?)
  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?
  1. Yes
  2. Some time, yes. I don't think I will spend a lot more time looking for such things to do, but I already spend a lot of time on Wikipedia and I when I come across an opportunity I will do what I can.
  3. Mostly request for assistance and VFD. I revert vandalism when I see it, but I don't spend a lot of time looking at recent changes.
  4. My user page lists the articles I feel I have contributed significantly to (either started the article or added at least a couple of paragraphs) but I particularly proud of System analysis and Theory of criminal justice.
  5. I have started doing some categorization recently (but not really extensive).
  6. I have been in disagreement with other users on a couple occasions (best example Talk:Causes of sexual orientation) but I don't let it become an edit war. If I make a comment on a talk page and other users disagree, I usually step back and let someone else (hopefully someone more impartial) make the necessary edits to the article.

CyborgTosser 19:34, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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=5639427"