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 AndreJustAndre (talk | contribs) at 22:29, 14 September 2004 (→[[User:Lst27|Lst27]] (5/0/0) Ends 22:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)). 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. Boilerplate questions for candidates can be inserted using {{subst:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Candidate questions}}.

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 (because consensus is subjective, bureaucrats have some discretion, but the threshold on this page is roughly 80% support). 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. Also, when voting, please update the heading of the section that you are voting in. The vote tally format is as follows: (Support/Oppose/Neutral).

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.

Current time is 22:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


CJCurrie (8/1/1) ends 15:49 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CJCurrie is a PhD history candidate at Queen's University in Kingston Ontario. He has been with us since April 2004 and has focussed largely on Canadian topics. His articles are thoroughly researched and meticulous and his editing has been problem free. He's also avoided any conflict with other editors. AndyL 15:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I accept this nomination. I've become extremely interested in Wikipedia as of late, and I'm willing (and able) become involved at the next level, beyond simply writing articles. CJCurrie 20:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Support

  1. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Gzornenplatz 17:08, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  3. -- orthogonal 17:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC). We represent the Lollipop Guild, The Lollipop Guild, The Lollipop Guild / And in the name of the Lollypop Guild, / We wish to welcome you to Muchkinland.
  4. Seems a strong user. Andre 19:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. A very strong user - Tεxτurε 19:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Lst27 21:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. —No-One Jones (m) 21:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. [[User:Anárion|Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ]] 22:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Will support after 2,000 edits. blankfaze | (беседа!) 16:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Cannot get a clear picture on community involvement. Hard-working, certainly, but I have no real way of knowing the level of CJ's knowledge of policies at this point in time. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:18, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?
A. I have.
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 am, and I do.
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 would be interested in watching for vandals and vandalism, and would be willing to assist in overseeing the "recent changes" list.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. Political parties of Canada. I've added several new parties to the list, and have written articles for many of them.
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 not done extensive work in correcting vandalism or mediating disputes (as of yet). I have categorized numerous articles in the field of Canadian political history, particularly as regards politicians in the province of Manitoba.
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. I have not been involved in hostile exchanges with other users.

Zoney (19/0/0) ends 13:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zoney has been with us since early March 2004 and has greatly expanded our coverage of Ireland-related subjects and European topics. Zoney generally handles conflicts well, and has an amiable outlook towards others. I have no doubt the community can trust him. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I accept this nomination, I've gotten more heavily involved I feel in Wikipedia over the last few months, and I feel confident at this stage to take on greater responsibilities. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 15:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. David Remahl 13:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC). My encounters with Zoney have been constructive.
  3. Norm 14:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. -- orthogonal 15:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC). Definitely, a friendly fellow except that he won't tell me where he keeps his pot o' gold.
  5. Michael Snow 15:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Antandrus 16:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) I've been impressed with his contributions and common sense.
  7. Zoney is a great contributor and fun to work with. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. blankfaze | (беседа!) 16:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. func(talk) 16:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) I've only seen good edits by Zoney, (love the Irish breakfast, btw). :)
  10. Good user. Andre 19:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. Conti|✉ 19:29, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Tεxτurε 19:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. Arminius 19:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. Agree with Ludraman. --Lst27 21:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  15. squash 21:15, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC) Zoney also hangs around on #wikipedia on freenode. His or her contributions to Ireland articles and the other edits are great... would be nice sysop.
  16. — Kate Turner | Talk 21:20, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
  17. —No-One Jones (m) 21:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  18. [[User:Anárion|Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ]] 22:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  19. I know you... -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:15, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?
A. I have.
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 will.
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. Certainly responding to requests, I like order also, so I hope to get up to speed on article/history mergings. I'll be available for other chores also.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. Train station and railway platform perhaps, along with associated articles.
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. As regards running/maintenance, I like to give opinions. I now frequent Village Pump a lot, and am happy to give my voice on any issues needing decisions.
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 serious conflict was probably when I just arrived, over Irish breakfast - I'd handle it better now I think. Nevertheless we worked out an agreement that involved expanding the article (the other party didn't want to keep the article, so that was something!). I'm not one for getting stressed, I'm a typically laid-back Irishman!

Gerald Farinas (17/0/2) ends 02:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gerald Farinas is one of the most dynamic Wikipedians I've had the good fortune to meet. He is dedicated, friendly, bold, and hard-working, and has made invaluable contributions to hundreds of Hawaii-related subjects, almost single-handedly. I know the community can trust Jerry to be a good sysop.

[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've been nominated a couple months ago but withdrew my nomination feeling that I wasn't quite ready and needed more experience interacting with other Wikipedians. I'm honored for this nomination and will accept this time around. --Gerald Farinas 03:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. This is my time to say, "He isn't an admin already?" Mike H 02:47, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Rhymeless 03:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. —No-One Jones (mail) 03:50, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. -- orthogonal 04:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) Anyone willing to withdraw his own nomination to get more experience I think demonstrates that he's more concerned with Wikipedia than his own ego. So I strongly support. So I really ought not to have mistakenly listed this under "oppose", should I have?
  6. MerovingianFile:Atombomb.gifTalk 06:21, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Lst27 15:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. Andre 16:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. Guanaco 21:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. ffirehorse 00:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. Young? Is he unusually young for a college student or something, blankfaze? The average college student probably falls near the middle of our age demographic. In any case, regardless of chronological age, Jerry has demonstrated plenty of maturity to qualify for adminship in my opinion. --Michael Snow 01:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  12. After seeing some of his incredible work on articles like Alan Keyes, how can I say no? -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 01:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. 172 10:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) Strong support. Within his first day or two on Wikipedia he contributed five articles. One was a short paragraph about Moanalua High School, and it got listed on VfD. Fortunately, he wasn't discouraged and shrugged it off, which tells me almost everything I need to know about him. Perhaps he shrugged it off because was too busy working on a very good article about Rogers Park, Chicago to worry about it. Since then, he has contributed mumble-hundred articles, and all the ones I've glanced at being just superb. Moanalua High School survived VfD by the way, and subsequently got polished into a little gem. Gerald Farinas knows how to write encyclopedia articles, and has a non-contentious personality.
  15. I'm not sure how I've failed to ever see Gerald's name before, given his large number of edits, but he seems like an excellent editor, and courteous and helpful in discussions. Definite support. —Stormie 01:42, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  16. • Benc • 02:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  17. Tεxτurε 19:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) - Can I change my vote to oppose due to my jealousy of your office view? Or should I support you and hope to leverage this into a job?

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Unsure about his knowledge experience with the Wikipedia community. Is certainly polite with others, but I am not sure if he has a complete grasp of all of the policies in place here. Plus, what would he do as a sysop? -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:55, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
    • Grunt, when you ask "what would he do as a sysop", I'm not sure what you mean. Could you expand on that, please? -- orthogonal 18:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I mean, essentially: How can the Wikipedia community benefit from making Gerald a sysop as opposed to his not being a sysop? -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:20, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
    • What do you do as a sysop? --MerovingianFile:Atombomb.gifTalk 23:05, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  2. If I'm not mistaken, isn't he a bit of a young chap? Seems to be a good contributor, but I would worry about inexperience, maturity, and the like, perhaps. Oops. Not that young after all. 8750 edits? Wow, impressive. But if Sir Grunt is reluctant to support, so then shall I be! blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:06, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    He's 21, if that matters. Mike H 01:24, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    Ah, fie, I feel afool. I must be thinking of someone else, or... something. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Perhaps you're thinking of me; I'll be 16 in November. --MerovingianFile:Atombomb.gifTalk 23:06, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    Nay, Mero, you are young, but responsible. Though I know not what you were thinking when you decided to put an animated gif in your signature! blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Don't let my vote influence yours, please... -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:24, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Comments

~8750 edits since May 17. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:55, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

That number may be slightly misleading—he has a pattern of rapid consecutive edits to the same article, which probably is an indication of care and meticulous proofreading—but he has created a truly impressive number of articles in any case. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?
A. Yes, several times since being first nominated for adminiship a couple of months ago. I withdrew my nomination then so I could get a better grasp of Wikipedia rules, policies and the overall culture that Wikipedians maintain.
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 work at a desk all day and when work is slow I usually end up on Wikipedia. I do have a considerable amount of time free to perform the necessary chores that come with the position.
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 would be free to do whatever is needed to be done in various areas as needed.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. I'm quite devoted to the Hawaii-based articles, especially the major historical articles: Republic of Hawaii and Territory of Hawaii. I also spent a lot of time categorizing the Hawaii-based articles — Category:Hawaii.
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.
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.

Andrevan (16/1/0) ends 05:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andrevan has shown hirself to be an excellent Wikipedian. It is clear to me that Andrevan can be trusted with the privileges and responsibilities of adminship. Sie is hard-working and trustworthy and as an admin will undoubtedly be able to contribute much more to Wikipedia. Node 05:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, I accept the nomination. For what it's worth, I have 1325 edits up to this point. Andre 06:01, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
An update: I now have 1618 edits. At this rate, I should be able to hit 1800 in time for Blankfaze to vote for me! :) Andre 19:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Node 05:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely. Longtime contributor, and a fellow video game aficionado to boot! --Slowking Man 06:13, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  3. MerovingianFile:Atombomb.gifTalk 06:50, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Norm 12:11, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. [[User:Anárion|Ана́рыён]] 13:30, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Mike H 15:20, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  7. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 15:21, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. Lst27 16:56, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. Zchangu 18:00, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. -- orthogonal 19:51, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. We can always use more grunt workers. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:04, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
  12. Guanaco 22:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. Beau99 22:51, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. ffirehorse 00:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  15. I oppose anyone who's so confrontational that they can start arguments over articles about invented, non-existent deities. Listing my vote in the support category is a valid surrealist technique. --Michael Snow 01:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  16. Tεxτurε 19:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Sie? I don't know what a sie is, and as such, I'm not sure a sie would make a good admin. Will support after 1,800 edits. blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    You are opposing someone because Node used a gender neutral pronown? Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 23:56, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Blankfaze, believe me, I'm a he, not a sie. Node just used gender neutral pronouns because he wasn't aware of my gender. If you want to oppose me because of my lower-than-your-standard edit count, do so, but please don't oppose me because my nominator referred to me in a gender-neutral manner. Andre 03:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I kid, everyone, I kid! blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • "Sie" is a neologistic gender-neutral third person singular pronoun, analogous to "he" or "she" but without specifying gender, but also without, like "it" implying the referent is non-human. -- orthogonal 23:58, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • It's also, uh, the German word for "she". Who came up with this nonsense? john k 02:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Through Wikipedia, I found out about Spivak pronouns, which I think I prefer. E, em, and eir sound much better to me than sie and hir, besides which, I like sounding slightly Cockney. func(talk) 00:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?
A. Yes, and I read it again just now to refresh my memory.
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, very interested, and I'm sure I'll have time to do them.
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. RC patrol is mainly what I think I can help with... vandalism, speedy deletes, and other maintenance that shows up on RC. Of course, I will respond to requests and do VfD as well.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. I'm a big fan of No soap radio, which I wrote most of myself. However, it's hard to pick one contribution that was the most helpful.
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 try to add a lot of new, interesting, and appropriate material, but I've also done NPOVing and vandalism revertion.
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. Just one on Talk:Invisible Pink Unicorn, but that was hardly a conflict, and everyone was satisfied with the end result.

Arminius (12/0/4) ends 00:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arminius has shown himself to be very calm in helping to curb vandalism as well as improve existing articles by tweaking them for POV. In his 1,330 edits since he started here on June 4, he has proven himself to be a very prolific editor and writer, helping in (mostly) articles related to government, economy, and the United States unofficial "dynasties", although he edits in a wide variety of topics. He is well-versed and very trustworthy. I have the utmost faith in his ability to perform admin duties responsibly. Mike H 00:47, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

I accept this nomination and hope to live up to the kind words given by the nominator. Arminius 00:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Mike H 00:47, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Mike H's support is enough for me. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Antandrus 01:24, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) Another one I've been impressed with here; good admin material.
  4. David Remahl 01:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. ffirehorse 02:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    -- orthogonal 11:09, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Gzornenplatz 11:34, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Andre 19:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. Lst27 Of course! He's an excellent contributor.
  9. MerovingianFile:Atombomb.gifTalk 04:59, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  10. An exemplary example of the type of person that a good Wikipedia contributor and would be a good sysop. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:01, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
  11. [[User:Anárion| (Anárion)]] 22:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  12. Good person to have around - Tεxτurε 19:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Austin Hair 01:55, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  2. I am very impressed with Arminius. I've been impressed with his work since I first saw it. I have nothing but support for the work he has done. I do feel, however, that simply not enough time has passed to vote for him as an admin. This isn't a matter of getting more of a record, but of going through some of the ups and downs of Wiki-involvement that just come along with time. I hope for a re-nomination in 4-8 weeks and a chance to vote for. Geogre 13:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    To be fair (and I respect your vote), he started working at Wiki the same day I did, and I was just promoted. Mike H 15:19, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Geogre. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. -- orthogonal 17:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) Agree with Geogre; Arminius supports sysops unilaterally departing from policy.

Comments

Just some explanation for Mike H: Your case was unusual, for me, because of just how blinking active you were. Your edits were everywhere, and you were stepping in to be The Man for an area that Wikipedia needed someone. I have not one ill word for anything I have seen from Arminius, and he's getting much more active now (or more noticeable? and being noticeable is not a good thing by itself, since some folks get really noticed for the wrong things), and so I really want to vote for him soon. Indeed, I'll be happy to do the nomination. Just a little time, that's all, so that I can see, now that Arminius is going to face the buffeting winds, how he reacts to them. Geogre 15:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?
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. I regularly view recent changes looking for new articles that need maintenance and looking for vandalism to correct.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A.
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 would have to say my best contribution is categorizing articles (which can be seen on my user page), although I hope to soon be able to say mediating conflicts.
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 had a few, and I'm happy to say in every case an agreement was worked out which satisfied both parties.

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.

Lst27 (5/1/0) Ends 22:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It has been about three months since my last RfA, and I want to try again for adminship. I am not the kind of person that I was before that was obsessed with adminship. Now I welcome a lot of newcomers, revert a lot of vandalism, and if I become an administrator, I will delete nonsense pages, and block vandals.

I have made approximately 2150 edits; but the number might be inaccurate because some edits were to correct my own spelling mistakes that I made before.

Support

  1. I must agree that there has been a marked improvement in Lst's behaviour. I support. — David Remahl 22:12, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. ‘"This should be no big deal," as Jimbo has said.’ (per Wikipedia:Administrators). Recent edits would appear to be good admin material. [[User:Anárion|Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ]] 22:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. I'd have nominated him myself; he's a good editor and committed to the project, so he ought to be an admin by now. Everyking 22:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. He expressed interest to me in being nominated last week, but I was so busy that I didn't respond to his email or recommend him. I would have, however. I support. Mike H 22:18, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Andre 22:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Last nomination failed 3-11, and not because he didn't have enough edits or anything like that. I don't see anything substantial having changed in this case. And "I am not the kind of person that I was before that was obsessed with adminship" is a ridiculous comment to make in a request for adminship. Gzornenplatz 22:25, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
    People do change... Andre 22:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Anárion (9/6/4) Ends 07:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've been actively editing using this account since april 2004, and have over 1500 non-minor edits as of this date. I feel sysop rights could be helpful for helping on patrol pages like Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, and similar pages. My main interest is in fiction and fictional topics, although I do edit "real topics" when I feel I have something to say. Sysop rights will also occasionally help in merging multiple stubby articles into broader articles. I must point out that currently I am involved in a debate on Acronym with User:Nohat, but I feel that the article's talk page is evidence enough that I am doing my best to work towards a concensus there.

Support

  1. —No-One Jones 08:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    172 08:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) (At the time of my support vote, I was confusing this user with another user.172 15:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC))
  2. — Jor (Talk) 15:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. -- orthogonal 17:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose until I see enough evidence that Anárion is not a sockpuppet of Jor. --Lst27 20:45, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)I move my vote to support.
  5. Jwrosenzweig 19:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) Er....I like Anarion, and would normally have supported, but Jor's vote is odd, considering it's his first edit in a long while (and that Jor's user page seems to imply he's editing under a different name now). I always liked Jor in the contexts we interacted, so this isn't me bashing either Jor or Anarion. I just have to think about this for a while. I've seen enough sockpuppet weird stuff around here that I trust my own judgment to a good extent -- this just doesn't have the feel of that sort of thing. I trust Anarion, and believe that adminship is well deserved. Jwrosenzweig 13:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Neutral > Support. Even if he is a sockpuppet, he hasn't been disruptive. Sockpuppets may be "uncool", but Anarion hasn't acted Jorish. --MerovingianFile:Atombomb.gifTalk 05:05, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Vote moved from neutral to support. Andre 16:53, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. He's been nice, helpful and contributing, in the couple topics and discussions I've happened to meet him. Aris Katsaris 22:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. ugen64 19:18, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I'm not convinced. It doesn't help that Jor votes here suddenly, although he hasn't edited articles since April (when his RfA failed, and at the very same time Anárion started editing - Jor's last article edit (apart from three isolated ones in May) took place on April 23, two hours before Anárion's first-ever edit - coincidence?). Also, Jor's user page makes it clear that he is still editing under another name - if that other name isn't Anárion, maybe Jor could tell us what it is. This again is, given the lack of de-sysopping procedures, too much of a risk. It is also interesting that Anárion made about half his edits in the last week only, and they're almost all de-facto minor edits, though not always marked as such. As to Jor, he clearly holds Nazi-sympathetic views like this expressed on Talk:Erika Steinbach: "A peace treaty was made impossible because Poland's allies immediately declared war on Nazi Germany, and it is rather pointless to speculate what might have been had England not taken the invasion of Poland as an excuse to declare war on their economic rival." Gzornenplatz 15:34, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
    I put a note on his talk page shortly after reading your question. If IPs will help convince you, I'll post logged-out here, if Jor will do the same you could compare our IPs. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 15:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    So although he practically hasn't edited for months, he sees your message within hours. Amazing. Gzornenplatz 16:21, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
    Anárion logged out 193.67.113.66 15:40, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    That would prove nothing; IPs are a dime a dozen. I recommend you not bother further with this accusation. It is largely irrelevant anyway whether you are someone's sockpuppet if your contributions speak for themselves, and spilling (virtual) ink on this issue will just cause it to haunt you further. The fact that Jor's adminship failed is not a mark against him, either; many good users don't get consensus for adminship for a while. VV 15:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. 172 Jor connection has me concerned 15:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Agree with 172. Ambi 07:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Rmhermen 16:08, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  5. I've been asked to review the technical evidence regarding any connection between Jor and Anárion. Although their most recently used IP addresses don't match, their interests appear to be very similar. I think I'd prefer to step on the side of caution. -- Tim Starling 11:07, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  6. I think this is like an "inverse court" where you are guilty until proved otherwise. Since the evidence above definitely brings doubt, I also oppose. Anarion, please don't take it personally. I am not saying you are a Neo-Nazi. I am just saying that this is one of the possible explanations of the facts above, and until this is ruled out without doubt, I oppose giving you administrator priviledges. If you are interested in the good of Wikipedia, you should agree that caution should be first, even if that principle hurts you personally. Gadykozma 23:14, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Gadykozma writes "until this is ruled out without doubt, I oppose giving you administrator priviledges [sic]." Well, then, how is Anarion to rule this out "without doubt"? -- orthogonal 23:17, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This is rather frustrating. The only "doubt" here seems to be that User:Wik (who I remind everyone was banned for excessive vandalism and edit warring) made a claim that I am Jor's sockpuppet, and apparently therefore people are now judging not me for my contributions, but for their feelings over another user, Jor (who had a nearly succesful RFA [1] in April). Tim Starling has done the search I asked for, and found no evidence that I am anyone's sockpuppet other than that my watchlist is similar to Jor's: I explained below why (I mass-imported List of Middle-earth articles into it, easily over 500 articles). How am I to prove I am myself then? [[User:Anárion|Ана́рыён]] 11:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Jor's "nearly successful" RfA was 18-14. With 14 oppose votes, he would have needed 56 supports. Also the question of whether Jor is Anárion does not depend on Wik's claim at all but on the facts stated above which you have not satisfactorily explained, e.g. Jor has supposedly introduced you to Wikipedia, but he stopped editing the moment you started - and although he hasn't edited in months, he immediately reacted when you posted him a message here, and conveniently voted for you, etc. By the way, it's also curious that your application says: "I've been actively editing using this account since april 2004." Using this account? Did you use another account before then? You know, between that and the message that was on Jor's page (before he modified it just now), it all seems as if your plan was (if I hadn't brought the Jor matter up before) to get the safety of adminship and then openly say that you were Jor before and ask for the accounts to be united. Gzornenplatz 17:11, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, I have been actively using this account since april 2004. I have not edited much before that, and have been editing logged in ever since. Jor's "immediate reaction" took several hours, and came from a different I.P. as Tim Starling pointed out. Also note that I was editing before and after Jor replied: If I were a "sockpuppet" of Jor, wouldn't he have replied either sooner, and from the same I.P.? I know your counter-argument for that, you'll say "proxy". I guess I cannot convince you or anyone else that I am who I say I am, as long as you want to find "suspicious" data you will no doubt find it. I don't know why Jor stopped editing, I haven't asked him. But given what I see here I have a pretty good idea that his user page is an accurate description. It pains me to see that because of one user's accusation I am being called a sockpuppet and by implication a neonazi, while I am doing my best to prove I am indeed a unique user and not just somebody's sockpuppet, who wishes to be judged by his own contributions, and not by what people think of another user they believe may have changed his writing style, I.P., username, password. I know my interests coincide for a large part with Jor's. My first edits here were Lord of the Rings-related articles, and I still have a great number of them on my watchlist. But if that is a criterion, there are many other users you should be suspecting of being a sockpuppet: I am willing to bet that (for example) Ausir, Aranel, Aris Katsaris (to name but three) also have a great number of Middle-earth articles on their watchlist. I am willing to cooperate with any admin to clear my name of Wik and Gzornenplatz' accusations of being a sockpuppet and a neonazi, but I have to given the chance. [[User:Anárion| (Anárion)]] 19:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • IPs say nothing; you don't even need proxies, you may just use different dialup ISPs. And I don't think you changed your writing style much at all. Indeed I found more curious similarities: both Anárion's user page and previous versions of Jor's user page use mdashes in the same way. Both Jor and Anárion have used the term "copy-edit" (hyphenated, which is unusual) in edit summaries (e.g. Jor: [2], [3], Anárion: [4], [5]). I checked the three examples you gave (Ausir, Aranel, Aris Katsaris) for comparison, and none of them has ever used "copy-edit" in an edit summary, nor do they use mdashes on their user pages. Coincidence? Gzornenplatz 20:38, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
            • Yes, coincidence. As your other "evidence". The only real evidence pointed out so far by Tim Starling was a blow against your theory. By the way, the verb is copy-edit: Talk:Editor, and a Google site-search on Wikipedia for "copy-edit" reveals more appearances of the hyphenated term on the Wikipedia, so if that is your best evidence, it is rather weak. Your attitude of "guilty until proven innocent" is rather discomforting to say the least, and I sincerely hope that you never have to decide on someone's guilt in real life. [[User:Anárion| (Anárion)]] 22:08, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
              • It's not weak at all. That there are other appearances on Wikipedia goes without saying. Of course you're not the only one ever to use that spelling. However, it is demonstrably very rare. I looked through the last 5000 edits on Recent Changes, and there were 14 instances of "copyedit" - in one word - used in edit summaries, but none at all hyphenated. So it's curious that you two would both hyphenate it. The same goes for the mdashes. And the combination is pretty damning. How many users can you find who have used "copy-edit" in edit summaries and mdashes on their user pages? Gzornenplatz 22:43, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
          • By the way, I never claimed Ausir, Aranel, or Aris Katsaris had a similar writing style, but that they likely also have a watchlist which overlaps for a great part with both Jor's and mine. 22:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • I didn't say you claimed it. I just used those names as some random control group. Gzornenplatz 22:43, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
I honestly don't have any idea how you could prove yourself innocent. Believe me, if I would have had an idea, I would have brought it up, I have nothing personal against you. But the weird coincidances noted above remain. Just consider yourself unlucky, that's all there is to it.
BTW: it was mentioned above that this is not a simple majority vote. Where are the precise rules recorded? Not in the top of the article where they should be, that's for sure. Gadykozma 15:05, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Merovingian (moved to support)
  2. I too like Anarion, but this Jor business is sort-of dubious. Neutral for now. blankfaze | (беседа!) 21:10, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Dubiousity. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 02:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Cannot see any real positive community involvement; cannot really see any community involvement at all, actually. Agree with Fennec on dubiosity note. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:09, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Comments

  • It seems to have been alleged that Anárion was formerly User:Jor (who was involved in German-nationalist POV-pushing and had a failed request for adminship in April). Is that correct? Gzornenplatz 10:28, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
    I know Jor outside the Wikipedia, and was introduced to it by him, but am not the same user. I'll let him answer the nazi accusation himself. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 10:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The only time I remember seeing this accusation was from Wik, not the most credible source. But Wik might have gotten it from elsewhere. VV 15:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • It is credible enough seeing that Anárion started at the time Jor left, and that they both edit the same Tolkienish fantasy stuff (except that Jor in addition made those German-nationalist edits). It is not a far-out speculation that Jor, after seeing he could not get adminship with his history, started under a new identity, carefully avoiding making nationalist edits until getting adminship, which he is now trying again. And if he's made admin, and suddenly starts again with the POV edits, there will be no way to get him de-adminned. (And by the way VV, the main problem with Wik was his edit warring, wasn't it? You seem to have taken that up from him pretty well.) Gzornenplatz 16:21, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
        • Wow, for a second it looked like you might make it an entire paragraph without sniping at me, but my conceptions are back to normal. No, Wik had other problems, not least exemplified by the "hate list" I linked to. VV 16:28, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • A hate list that he later removed when I asked him to.Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 08:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • Well, many asked him to remove it, I don't know who was key. But the fact is he made it in the first place, and it was hardly an isolated instance of personal attacks. VV 01:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
              • Actually not very many people did ask him to remove it.IIRC most people just edit warred with him by constantly removing it. I think only myself and Danny asked him to remove it.But the point I'm trying to make is that the "Key" person was Wik. He removed the list himself. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 21:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    I was NOT involved in German-nationalist POV-pushing: I was involved (against my will) in banned user:Gdansk's Stalinist propaganda pushing, and banneduser:Wik's edit wars (the troll hates me, and blindly reverted all my edits). To answer your question: I am not his socksuppet nor he mine. — Jor (Talk) 15:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Would Jor or Anárion have anything against a sock-puppet search performed by one of the developers? You both seem eager to clear yourself from the suspicions. — David Remahl 03:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    While of course I would oppose it on principle ("assume guilt"?), if "the community" feels the need, I do not object to it. However, I do edit from multiple locations (home and work at the least, occasionally other locations), so there will be multiple IP addresses listed. And I do not doubt our watchlists overlap for a large part: I have included nearly all articles from List of Middle-earth articles to my list. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 09:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) Revised, see below.
    Since Gzornenplatz is accusing me of being a "sockpuppet" of User:Jor, and is at the same time accusing Jor of being a neonazi, he is by implication calling me a neonazi. I do not appreciate being labelled such by Gzornenplatz or anyone else. Gzornenplatz' belief I am a "sockpuppet" also seems to be the sole reason for opposing this candidacy, so a search which can clear me of this insane accusation would only be in my benefit. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 07:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Could you please not use an image as your signature? There are good reasons for not doing so. Markalexander100 07:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Sure. [[User:Anárion|АПА́ДІОП]] 07:59, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. ;) Markalexander100 08:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The charge is that Jor pushed (disturbing) POV and that Anárion may be Jor. But Anárion has so far as I know from the above discussion, not pushed POV; even if Anárion is also Jor, the indication would be that Anárion has learned not to push POV and hasn't since April. That would seem to argue that Anárion at least shows the restraint we would find a good quality in all sysops, and would be an argument for support.
  • The only issue then is if Anárion and Jor are the same person, in which case Jor's vote in support of Anárion would be ballot-box stuffing -- which I think alone would disqualify a nominee. Since Tim starling finds no evidence that both users use the same IP, I think we must discount this possibility unless further evidence of sockpuppetry is offered.-- orthogonal 11:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ludraman (11/5/0) Ends 18:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've been here since November 03 and have circa 830 edits as I write this. I feel I could be useful to Wikipedia as a sysop. I admit to not being the most active of Wikipedians, but this is partly due to an (unintentional!) 3 month break. I plan to do more in the future. If anyone has any questions at all, please feel totally free to ask. LUDRAMAN | T 17:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. I don't usually support somebody with this few edits, but I've seen Ludraman's work; it is very good. --Merovingian✍Talk 17:38, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. -- orthogonal 17:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Mike H 19:08, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC) This is really going against my established feelings on the edit issue, but I feel that the edit history is sufficient enough to warrant moving up.
  4. Acegikmo1 20:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Lst27 20:45, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Gzornenplatz 20:59, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  7. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 00:03, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. Node 03:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. VV 06:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) Especially to help out someone being unfairly treated by the likes of Blankfaze.
  10. Andre 02:08, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. This Blankfaze comment: "cannot in good faith support anyone who thinks VeryVerily would make a good admin" is not the right way to judge someone. My vote is for support [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:14, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Opppose

  1. I cannot in good faith support anyone who thinks VeryVerily would make a good admin. blankfaze | (беседа!) 21:12, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • See now (I'd still like to hear what VV has to say) LUDRAMAN | T 22:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Depending on whether or not your vote stays out of his Support column, I may or may not reconsider my vote here. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:32, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Blankfaze I'd like you to reconsider your vote. The point of voting for admins is that people should be able to vote according to how they decide. Your vote looks like intimidation to me. "vote for who I say or else I'll oppose your nomination" If the trolls see this they'll have a field day. Cabal anyone? I'll tell you what, Since I basically agree with Lupo, If you remove this vote of opposition I'll replace it with my own. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 21:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • If FakeSampleUser were to nominate you and I didn't like FakeSampleUser, why would I vote to oppose you? --MerovingianFile:Atombomb.gifTalk 22:59, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Maybe later. Ludraman's been away for three months, and is back for just about two weeks now. Why not wait a little longer? Lupo 21:16, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Only 830 edits? No, and especially no for a self-nomination (regardless of whether you've been active for nine months, six months, or otherwise). I can see the goodwill there; perhaps you should come back after a few hundred more edits. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:10, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
  4. Rmhermen 16:08, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) Too soon back, small number of edits.
  5. BCorr|Брайен 15:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) I agree with Rmhermen. Would support in a couple of months.

Neutral

Comments

  • I think ludraman will reconsider his support for VV if he reviews the user's edit history (I'm not all too familiar with it either, but I do know he is not very highly regarded within parts of the community...) — David Remahl 21:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
See now (I'd still like to hear what VV has to say) LUDRAMAN | T 22:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This vote is not about VV. Please don't start with the fratricide on aboout VV here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]]

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?

Answers:

  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. Vandalism, recent changes, editor requests, deletions (esp speedy) are all things i plan to do.
  4. I don't do huge amounts to a narrow range of articles, but I felt I made a good contribution to Bunratty Castle, Irish Breakfast and a few others I can't think of offhand. Now that I'm back, though, K'nex and Guinness Peat Aviation are both going to be really good.
  5. I revert vandalism in bursts, and am on the Welcoming and Harmonious Editing committees (come to think of it I do a lot of welcoming). I also catagorised a lot of the Sherlock Holmes story articles.
  6. We had a few debates over Irish Breakfast, mainly User:Jooler, User:Zoney and myself. But we argued them out asd produced a (pretty) fair and balanced end result, improving the article. LUDRAMAN | T 16:08, 8 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=5888384"