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 Dysprosia (talk | contribs) at 06:22, 27 January 2004 (s jamesday). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Here you can make a request for adminship. See Wikipedia:Administrators for what this entails and for a list of current admins.

Guidelines

Current Wikipedia policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. Most users seem to agree that the more administrators there are the better.

Wikipedians are more likely to support the candidacy of people who have been logged-on contributors for some months and contributed to and created a variety of articles over that time without often getting into conflicts with other users.

If you want to nominate yourself to become an administrator, it is recommended that you wait until you have been a user for a reasonable period of time - long enough to show yourself to be trustworthy (on the order of months). Any user can comment on your request—they might express reservations (because, for example, they suspect you will abuse your new-found powers, or if you've joined very recently), but hopefully they will approve and say lovely things about you.

After a 7 day period for comments, if there is general agreement that someone who requests adminship should be given it, then a developer will make it so and record that fact at Wikipedia:Recently created admins.

Nominations for adminship

Note: Nominations have to be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, please also leave a message on their talk page and inform them about their listing on this page, and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.

Please place new nominations at the top

JamesDay

I would like to nominate JamesDay for adminship. He has been here since September and appears to have a good understanding of how Wikipedia works. He has put a lot of effort into the copyright violations page and other legal areas. I've had conflicts with him in the past, but he has always remained very civil throughout these, demonstrating excellent Wikiquette. I think he'd be a very trustworthy and capable sysop. Angela. 00:30, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. JamesDay seems to think that nothing is copyrighted. RickK 00:44, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • That's not the impression I have gotten from talking to him on IRC. Dori | Talk 01:16, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Please see my reply to you saying something similar on 6 Jan. I've been on both the receiving and writing end of copyright infringement notices. Largest single loss from the actions of an infringer in respect of something I've written exclusively myself is US$20,000 - at least, that's the largest I know about. Jamesday 16:01, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I say he's definitely been involved enough. But what is his legal background? --Jiang 01:03, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • He said that he has been following copyright cases, but that he is not a lawyer. I better let him answer in more detail though. Dori | Talk 01:16, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
      • He's not a lawyer and I disagree with his views regarding the GFDL, but I don't think that precludes him from being a sysop. Angela. 02:11, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not a lawyer. I've been involved in managing online communities and using the law relating to them since the mid 90s, so I have a fair idea of what US law relating to them and copyright questions within them says. Jamesday 16:01, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Dori | Talk 01:16, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Cyan 16:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - appears to have a talent for puting up with the unputupwithable. -- Finlay McWalter 17:27, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Whether or not his legal views are accurate is something I can't really judge, and is not relevant in any case, as I believe he's a trustworthy contributor who will not use his sysop powers to do anything anti-consensus. --Delirium 23:28, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. As yet another non-lawyer, I am sometimes concerned that James Day's copyright opinions are not fully accurate (though never enough to be concerned about him as an editor--besides, I know far less than he does about copyright law), but I am always pleased by his thorough and generally clear reasoning in such discussions. Also, I do not believe that granting him sysop status will affect the copyright concerns at all--he will be no more or less likely to promote the stance that RickK objects to, and as noted above, I'm not convinced there's anything wrong with his stance. Jwrosenzweig 23:50, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Mr. McWalter, methinks thou havest une penchant pour le creatizzle of new wordages. ugen64 03:48, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Optim 02:34, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 10:24, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Hemanshu 06:25, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I have found him to be nothing but pleasent, friendly and helpful. Find a few more like him if you will, sharp eye Angela. Jack 11:27, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - Hephaestos 06:30, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Dysprosia 06:22, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Roadrunner

User:Roadrunner has made about 5000 edits, most of good quality. His contributions list registers his first edit on Apr 2002. Though this may not be accurate due to the glitch, I pretty sure he's been here longer than I have. --Jiang 22:07, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • support. Greenmountainboy 17:38, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support, copious contributor. (Maybe nominations should be switched to the top of this page so they'd be more noticeable.) - Hephaestos 04:13, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • (Moved nominations as you suggest, though NB have no opinion for or against User:Roadrunner -- Trainspotter 15:31, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC))
  • nth. Can't believe a longtime contributor still haven't been promoted to sysop.大将军, 都督中外诸军事 (talk) 00:02, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tuf-Kat
  • Support. I have seen him insert a quality NPOV compromise into a troubled POV debate/altercation regarding a passage, and thereby resolve the circumstance. He appears to have just the sort of judicial approach that would dignify adminship with his inclusion. Jack 04:04, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's about time, and I hope he accepts. --Uncle Ed 16:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Infrogmation 05:17, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Hemanshu 06:27, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Requests for adminship

Please add new requests to the top

Sarge Baldy

Hi! I've been around since mid-September 2003 and have 778 (assuming I counted correctly) edits to my name. True, the vast majority of these are minor fixes but in the long run minor fixes are nearly as important as major additions if you're trying to make a professional-looking encyclopedia. If you look through my contributions you'll see I messed up a few times when I was new (uploading images without citing a source, and/or was too trusting something was in the public domain) but I know what's going on now. Oh yeah, and being something of a spelling and grammar nazi I'm a member of the Wikipedia Typo Team. I've started a few articles too (all of which are listed in my talk page), although these aren't anything terribly special. So yeah, support me or not, I'm going to be around for a while :) Sarge Baldy 06:54, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Credentials and edit history look great. silsor 07:40, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I admit I havn't seen you around much, but this is a big place. Anyways I looked at your cotributions and I found nothing but good, fixing those little mistakes people like me make from time to time, adding content and writing articles as well. Jack 11:32, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support 100%. I've interacted with him and the experience was totally painless. →Raul654 18:05, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - Hephaestos 06:30, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

ike9898

I've been contributing for 7 months and I have about 450 edits. I have a good command of American English and I'm interested in a variety of subjects.

I really love the 'pedia and I want to contibute more by helping to squash vandalism. I would be conservative in my use of admin powers. My number of edits isn't huge, partly because half the time when I'm on the 'pedia I just read and read. I feel that my cruising around the database would be helpful in spotting nefarious user activity and stopping it quickly. I hope you will support my request for adminship. ike9898 15:20, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • While not a high number of edits, it's not out-of-the-question low either. He has been here 7 months, which is a lot longer than most people who apply. His contribution history is encouraging, and I think he's established a history of trustworthyness. Support. →Raul654 23:31, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think I can support just yet. Ike has certainly done some good things, but over half of those edits (which are definitely on the low end) have taken place in only the last month. The previous six months show bursts of editing for a day or two followed by long stretches of silence. Assuming ike continues to edit at the current pace, I think adminship would be in order...in another month, assuming ike had stayed around and showed real sustained interest here, I'd nominate him/her myself. At present, I don't feel comfortable doing so, unless there are multiple testimonials here from people who've collaborated with ike. Jwrosenzweig 00:02, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think he can handle it. silsor 02:30, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Uwe Kils

Please reset sysop status again


Uwe


  • You haven't been active in a very long time. Some things have changed since. I would wait at least a month. Can you be more specific when you say "the old problems have been resolved." --Jiang 22:22, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Hallo Jiang! - there were problems with the presentation of some human morphology in the wikipedia project and we got into troubles with parents and students, some editing under my name. To protect students names I erased my own discussion page. After many months some others also found our way of thinking not too bad and the images are better and better placed now. I was on medical leave and am happy to work at all - a month is fine with me. Best greetings from uwe Kils 23:07, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • How do you plan to use your adminship powers and how you believe they will be useful to you for helping Wikipedia more? Optim 23:53, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Hallo Optim! The same way I used it many months ago during over 1000 contributions. But it is really not a big deal, I only want to go with my full name if it is wanted by some @ wikipedia - we have already enough work with our own servers. good luck to you Kils 23:24, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, Uwe, but I don't entirely understand your answer to Optim's question. Are you saying that if you aren't made an admin, then you don't want to continue to edit wikipedia, and will instead edit on your own servers? Sorry if I've misunderstood you. -- Finlay McWalter 22:50, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
            • Hallo Finlay! No, I will continue to contribute to wikipedia in the science field anyway, that has nothing to do with our Viking projekt, which was to show how difficult it is for any WIKI to shed again rotten content. We once were a group of 27 persons, some from the communication field, and tried to get some rotten content off wikipedia. It did not work. Finally the picture was totally gone - now I can cooperate with my full name again - if wanted - and it is for me not very important if I do it as a sysop or not - it would only help in explaination of editorship, something we get asked often. You should know that we incorporated the wikipedia into a grant proposal to the National Science Foundation, and it was difficult to explain the editorship and our standing. Sincerely yours, Professor Dr. habil. Uwe Kils 00:30, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)


  • Oppose until Uwe has been here for a while again. RickK 00:47, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I've changed my vote to Oppose under all circumstances. The discussions below show that Uwe is not interested in collegiality and should not only not be a sysop, but might need watching under all circumstances. RickK 19:02, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)
  • Support. He's been around a while, even if not active recently, and has contributed quite a bit. Seems trustworthy, and I don't expect him to misuse any sysop powers or anything of that sort. If others don't agree, just stick around a bit and ask again in a month or two; having sysop powers doesn't actually make all that much difference anyway except for housekeeping type tasks. --Delirium 23:33, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. You've committed less than 50 edits since June. silsor 23:35, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised that no-one seems to know who this guy is. Well, that's what you get for high contributor growth/turnover, I guess. You may want to consider reading the mailing list discussion regarding User:Viking (for example [1]), and the thread regarding Kils' de-adminship [2].
      • I know who he is as I was one of the people who clashed with him back then. I have to say that his behavour afterwords was exemplary. IIRC he asked for his sysop status to be removed and made a point of apologizing to everyone concerned individually. I think he would probably make a very good sysop. Forgive and forget is my motto. theresa knott 15:50, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • It's quite true -- his behaviour afterwards was exemplary. But I'd prefer it if people would make an informed choice regarding this vote, as opposed to making a judgement on the basis of edit count as a number of people seem to have done. -- Tim Starling 04:09, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • If you would be specific I would respond - even though you come here anonymous Kils 01:10, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry, forgot to sign. I'm not making any allegations, so there's no need for you to respond. I'm not expressing an opinion on your request. -- Tim Starling 03:00, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
        • Hallo Tim! Thank you for your response. Any source is only as trustworthy as the total of its non anonymous, visible editors. Kils 16:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Why do I feel as if I've seen you before many times, yet you havne't contributed much since June? oh, and Support. ugen64 03:50, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think Kils need to be around for a while longer before he can regain the trust of the community. Angela. 03:56, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Hallo Angela! Maybe you can explain to the community and my students and me what horrible we have done. We moved an image with doubtfull origin and ugly content behind a warning in order to have an easyer living with parents who watched what we endorsed. Later this image was taken away totally by other authorities and today it is off. I asked to have my sysop status removed at that time, because I did not want my name associated with the kind of content available from wikipedia last summer. We were not the only ones who felt the content was beyond a good encyclopedia - it was a female image, by the way. It would be a good thing for wikipedia reputation if more editors would contribute under their real name, by the way --- Kils 18:56, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I think the links Tim provided already explain that. For example, according to this post you were vandalising and making threats and you had your sysop status removed as a result of that, yet for some reason you are trying to hide that fact by suggesting all you did was move an image, and then saying you requested your sysop status be removed. It isn't possible to provide further evidence because according to the May 2003 deletion log you deleted User talk:Viking/ban. Angela. 20:26, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)
          • Our user:talk and user talk:viking/ban was undeleted by other sysop and only after our request and votes finally much later deleted. Can you please finally stop digging in the past. The Vikings nor Uwe will never delete any content of others, as both state on the user pages, and we have not done such over half a year. Before that we only took the CEOs invitation to everyone to "edit this page", and did it non anonymous (in opposition to many of the current sysops, who not even give their name but do vote) - Kils 16:35, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • The Vikings asked me to delete their discussion page, and I also deleted mine and the history of edits - I was one of the Vikings (we were once over 25) - so what is the bad thing about it? Kils 21:18, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • Are you asking me what is bad about abusing sysop powers to delete pages that were discussing whether you should be banned? Angela. 21:25, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)
            • On these pages were real names, and we did not want to get them connected with the content of the summer. Kils 21:31, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the basis of the above conversation with Angela. --snoyes 22:07, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • [Note: part of this conversation has since been deleted by User:Vikings. Angela. 00:42, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)]
  • Oppose. - Hephaestos 00:24, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Optim 00:38, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Salsa Shark 00:47, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. You have not given any good reason for being a sysop (an editor can do the same things you intend to do), and based on past actions I would say you still need to regain some trust. Dori | Talk 01:00, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as a father and teacher Uwe spends too much time on wikipedia anyway sailor 01:42, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) (User:JamesDay notes that sailor is User:Vikings)
  • Kils, sailor/Vikings, one of the problems with the Wikipedia at the moment is people using multiple identities to create good me/bad me combinations or otherwise hide their controversial acts. Could you both please explain your views of these things to help me form an opinion on whether to support or oppose your adminship:
    • This edit where sailor/Vikings removed part of the writing of Uwe Kils.
    • This edit to the user page of sailor/Vikings where a statement that something was added by an anonymous person was added by sailor/Vikings.
    • Why the history of the user page for sailor/Vikings shows Uwe apparently cooperatively edting as if Uwe and Vikings were the same person.
    • Whether it was the clitoris image which was hidden or removed and why it was done without using the normal wiki decision-making process instead? I'm familiar with the discussions of the image, what interest me is why normal process wasn't followed. Jamesday 02:28, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Hallo JamesDay, thank you for your interest in the very difficult history. We work on constructive, future oriented projects, adding many images, and will concentrate our time on such. Uwe is one of the vikings, just a normal one, and the vikings did nothing bad, just took the invitation of the CEO to "edit this page". If you are interested in the history of the Vikings and their many first names you can dig in our discussion page. Any ban would have had not much of an effect, we have 28+ computers and could have gone on an edit war, but we did not. Some of our goals we reached. Other authority found our sugesstions reasonable. Uwe cares not much about sysop status anyway. Can a sysob please delete the last sentence of the Jamesday contribution. Thank you , Uwe Kils 16:19, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Does not need sysop to edit, the actions and statements I see do not merit sysophood Archivist 02:46, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Uwe has failed to properly answer Optim's, Angela's, and particularly James' questions. Wikipedians who either can't or won't answer simple, honest questions adequately should not be sysops. -- Finlay McWalter 17:00, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I answer to people from whom at least I know the full name. Votes of anonymous sysops don't touch me much. Did you made that rule? Uwe Kils 20:24, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Most strongly oppose. The above makes it abundantly clear Uwe has learned nothing, and furthermore, casts serious doubt over whether he is even capabable of learning anything, from his past mistakes. And by the way, does someone have a backup copy of the clitoris-photo? -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 17:38, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • I learn from people with a name. Contributors with no name and desire like you (blue jacket) are the reason that so few professional editors and few donators enter wikipedia. We do not give our names and resposibility to uncopyrighted material you ask others for. Why don't you make your own wiki, gathering people with your desire, the code is open. I guided many donations in the 6 digit range in the past - if anonymous like you get much saying in wikipedia it will go to ads on the pages. Kils 20:44, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I dare say my desire is the same as that of the majority of contributors to this project, produce an open content reference work without equal. That includes containing images of penes and the odd clitoris as well, not to speak of articles on subjects you (and I) may legitimately consider unsavoury. My legal name is Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, if you google groups for it, you will find postings from decades back etc. etc... If on the other hand you were referring to a supposition that I lack an academic title, let me just say that I dare pit my learning against yours any day of the week, both in breadth and depth (in several specialized subjects, which I haven't contributed much in, since they are pretty well covered on wikipedia anyway). On the question of six figure donations, I think it does lead to an intresting conceit, namely the supposition that a six figure donation would be enough to entice Jimbo Wales into removing all unsavoury, or as you so eloquently put it: "ugly" material from wikipedia. Trying it out, I dare submit, would not qualify as an experiment, but rather more closely a confirmation, of that which most the community of wikipedians already knows. Furthermore, if it came to a choice between ads and censorship, I would guess that ads would win hands down, as an option. The one thing that nearly all wikipedians could teach you lessons in, is how to conduct oneself in a facility built and furnished by the hard work of hundreds of dedicated people without wish for recompense, that is, if you but had the wit to absorb such rudimentary human societal wisdom -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 15:49, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
        • Hallo Jussi-Ville! Thank you for your long respose. Allow me please to apologize, I did not see that you gave your name on your userpage. The Vikings never cut away any materials but ours and our discussion pages, and we are absolutely not going for censorship and never did. The image you mention you can still see on European wiki, there the publication laws are much more tolerant, as are the parents and donators. We had a potent philanthropist hooked on wiki, and asked to show the most advanced, better than other online encyclopediae, it was easy in wikipedia, but asked for the most ugly that I know off it was bad (not the page you think of). We even wrote an endorsement which was published (see link on my user page) and brought wikipedia into the media often. I absolutely did not mean to insult you on academic grounds or titles, with "name" I meant normal name. Please apologize if you felt like it. We need more admins like you with a real name!!! I also never cut away any image, on the contrary, I added over 80. I only applied for "reset of adminship" because I lost a bet within the Vikings experiment; but I see I will win another one: I projected the response of the wiki quite well. Good luck to you and keep up with your fine work. I admire the work of all admins, making the content we as editors (contributors) put in run and give life to the wiki. In my view Wikipedia is the best that happend in education in decades, if not at all, and I hope it will be there forever - Editor (Contributor) Uwe Kils 21:30, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)


  • Oppose. --Zundark 22:39, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • (Oppose) It is my most humble opinion that the anonymity of a user is of no matter here. One can be entirely anonymous, or partially anonymous, and yet be completely trustworty. What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet. --Lord Emsworth 00:47, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- sannse 13:20, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose ike9898 15:08, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Summary (corrected and updated by sannse 17:40, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)):

1 x Wait
2 x Support
1 x "forgive and forget" (presumably support)
15 x Oppose

I see two supports, expected zero - Kils 14:47, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Then why did you... never mind. --silsor

Requests and nominations for de-adminship

If you're requesting your own de-adminship, you can do so private communication with a developer, should you wish to do so. If you're requesting de-adminship of someone else, you can do so here, but please first try to discuss the issue directly with the admin in question.

Note that there are alternatives to removing sysop privileges: a "clarification" or "request" from Jimbo is more likely than something so drastic.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=2242909"