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 Finlay McWalter (talk | contribs) at 11:40, 10 May 2004 (=Misterrick (2/6) ends 06:12, 15 May 2004= 22). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Communitypage

Requests for adminship are requests made for a Wikipedian to be made an administrator. These requests are made via nomination.

Important notes

Here you can make a request for adminship. See Wikipedia:Administrators for what this entails and see Wikipedia:List of administrators for a list of current admins. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats for a list of users entrusted to grant sysop rights.

If you vote, please update the heading. If you nominate someone, you may wish to vote to support them.

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 a variety of articles without often getting into conflicts with other users. It is expected that nominees will have good familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures.

Nomination. Most users become administrators by being nominated by another user. Before nominating someone, get permission from them. Your nomination should be indicative that you believe that the user meets the requirements and would be an exemplary administrator. Along with the nomination, please give some reasons as to why you think this editor would make a good administrator.
Self-nomination. If you wish to become an administrator, you can ask someone to nominate you. Self-nominations are accepted, however. If you want to nominate yourself to become an administrator, it is recommended that you wait until you exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure,.
Anonymous users. Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or support or oppose nominations. The absolute minimum requirement to be involved with adminship matters is to have a username in the system.

After a minimum 7 day period for comments, if there is general agreement that someone who requests adminship should be given it, then a bureaucrat will make it so and record that fact at Wikipedia:Recently created admins and Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats. If there is uncertaintly, in the mind of even one bureaucrat, at least one bureaucrat should suggest an extension, so that it is clear that it is the community decision which is being implemented.

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 ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.

Please place new nominations at the top.

Guanaco (5/2/0); ends 23:57, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

~ 1950 edits, user since March 1. Seems not unreasonable, interested in process (lots of listing at Speedy deletions, Wikipedia:Images for deletion, dealing with user page redirects of vandals pretending to be Jimbo, vandalism reversion, replacing stub notices with the proper mediawiki message, various fixes, other useful tasks. - Fennec 01:53, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

I originally accepted at 03:15, 6 May 2004, but I've just now decided to move this nomination thing here myself. It was originally commented out on my talk page by Fennec when he asked me whether I would accept a nomination. Guanaco 23:57, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not to have noticed this earlier... I've been a trifle more busy than I anticipated of late :D - Fennec 14:35, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Fennec 01:53, May 6, 2004 (UTC) -- wouldn't hurt if he used the edit summary box just a little more, though :)
  2. Dysprosia 00:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC) good work at Speedy deletions, so would be able to take care of things himself...[reply]
  3. Here for too months, and I've seen good work. Meelar 21:31, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Good contributor and I am not sure 3000 edits is a fair or often applied metric for adminship. GrazingshipIV 21:36, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Masses of vandalism control, I thoroughly approve and support Guanaco's nomination. --Stormie 10:54, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Not here long enough. Not enough edits. Kingturtle 20:26, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too new. --Wik 20:32, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

Comment:

Andrew Yong (4/1/0); ends 20:49, 2004 May 15 2004 (UTC)

I was struck today by the fabulous work at Penang Hokkien, but also recall his various informative edits. Check his work. -- Kaihsu 20:49, 2004 May 8 (UTC)

Support

  1. Kaihsu
  2. Jiang 22:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC) 1500 edits is enough, considering the quality of his work.[reply]
  3. Been here since August and made over 1450 edits. GrazingshipIV 23:36, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
  4. john 00:53, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Far too few edits thus far for me to determine how he responds to different situations. Kingturtle 22:11, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect -- Wikipedia is no bootcamp and not all topics are controversial; those who go for non-controversial articles should not be discriminated. Just curious, how many do you (y'all) think is 'enough'? (I set a soft threshold of 1000.) -- Kaihsu 22:23, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
    He's repeatedly stated a 3000 edit minimum, which I think is too high--it would have taken me years to get there if I wasn't currently unemployed (I've been spending 6-10 hrs/day on WP since March). Niteowlneils 20:23, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    My wonder is why you bother to go through with voting on this basis, when it's fairly clear that you're the only person who feels this way, and that voting on this basis is never ever going to affect if someone gets Adminship? I mean, I understand your argument (although I respectfully disagree), but what's the point of the forlorn stand on the RfA page? Wouldn't it make more sense to work to get some kind of official standard set? john 00:53, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that's not true--rather, it will only have an impact on controversial nominations like User:Cecropia. I disagree with it and wish you wouldn't, though you're of course within your rights. Meelar 01:52, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    I set the bar high. IMHO, to be an admin one must have a lot of experience using wikipedia and a lot of experience interacting with the community. I support those I feel are ready, and I oppose those I feel are not ready. Maybe gradually, in the long run, others will see why I set the bar high, and join me. Still, with that said, I also take my responsibility as a bureaucrat quite seriously; even if I oppose someone's adminship, if this peer group forms a consensus supporting an individual, I do the "paper work" to make that person an admin. Kingturtle 20:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your thoughtful considerations. -- Kaihsu 10:49, 2004 May 10 (UTC)
    Kingturtle, I just want to say that even though I disagree with your 3000 edit minimum idea, this is meant to be a vote, and of course you should register your objection if that is how you feel. It is by no means a "forlorn stand". Stick to your guns, I say! --Stormie 10:57, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

User:Jfdwolff (19/1/1)

He has made about 2000 (I believe) edits, many on medicinal topics, and has shown himself to be a conscientious and good contributor. Meelar 23:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honoured to accept.
JFW | T@lk 23:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  1. Meelar
  2. Jwrosenzweig 23:27, 3 May 2004 (UTC) (Man, nominations are coming out of the woodwork -- is this an unusual trend, or just a sign that we're finally recognizing that many, many editors do outstanding work here -- Jfdwolff not least of them! -- and we're too slow to respond?)[reply]
  3. Support. He's done some great work organising the Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine. Angela. 23:34, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Bummer, I wanted to nominate him myself. Support. Danny 23:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tuf-Kat 00:05, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
  6. 172 02:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cecropia 02:19, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cribcage 03:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GrazingshipIV 03:35, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Warofdreams 18:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  11. User:Zanimum
  12. Graham  :) | Talk 23:05, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  13. PFHLai 14:31, 2004 May 6 (UTC)
  14. jengod 19:57, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
  15. We need more Wikidocs -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:07, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Lst27 23:25, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  17. BCorr|Брайен 00:30, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
  18. James F. (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Just looking at the number of edits does not do Jfdwolff justice, as he tends to make large edits rather than trivial ones. A solid record of contributions. Andrewa 01:38, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Not enough edits yet, IMHO. Therefore, not enough experience yet, IMHO. Kingturtle 01:10, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: The user has 1326 edits according to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits from April 24, 2004 -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:07, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: That is about 2/5s the number of edits I think are necessary before considering a candidate. Kingturtle 22:05, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. So I think Kingturtle sets the threshold at about 3000. According to the list (referred to above), about 166 Wikipedians fulfil your criterion (I have 3544 with rank 133, so I barely made the cut). We have about 224 administrators. Do the maths. (Not a vote) -- Kaihsu 22:36, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
    Heavens. 3k edits? I have only 2k5 edits (less, probably), and when made a sysop, 11 months ago, I had... less. Just over 500, I think. Does this mean I should be de-sysop'ed, in your opinion? ;-) -- James F. (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral:

  1. Never heard of em. anthony (see warning)
    Take the time to review Jfdwolff's edit history. Kingturtle 00:24, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:Everyking (19/1/0) Ends 22:46, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Another user who should've been made admin a while ago. 172 22:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Information only: Everyking, according to my count, has 5,200+ edits since beginning here in mid-February, 2004. Jwrosenzweig 22:52, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I accept. Everyking 23:07, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. 172 22:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Danny 22:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cyrius|&#9998 22:56, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 23:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Meelar 23:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tuf-Kat 00:05, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Cribcage 03:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kingturtle 03:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GrazingshipIV 03:39, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
  10. theresa knott 17:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Very active. Support. Warofdreams 18:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Extreme inclusionist, voting on VfD almost like myself. anthony (see warning)
  13. Support enthusiastically. Mostly I've see him on VfD voting to keep things I'd rather see deleted. However, a look the links on his user page shows him filling important gaps with good articles, especially on African politcs. Isomorphic 05:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Aside from Jfdwolff, he's the only editor I've heard of, currently on this list. I think that counts for a lot. -- user:zanimum
  15. Inclusionism aside (there are far worse out there) he would make a very good admin -- Graham  :) | Talk 23:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Sysopship doesn't affect your VfD vote. Besides, you know any admins who have gotten in trouble for not deleting something? :) - Fennec 05:10, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Infrogmation 05:59, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Rhymeless 06:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  19. BCorr|Брайен 00:30, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Extreme inclusionist, voting on VfD almost like Anthony. --Wik 07:25, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
How would that make him a bad admin? theresa knott 17:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sign of bad judgment. --Wik 18:21, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm I tend to disagree, but no matter. The important question is IMO do you think he is likely to abuse admin power? In other words, have you ever seen him engage in dodgy behaviour such as deleting other people's comments, being abusive to people he doesn't agree with, getting involved in edit wars, that kind of thing? theresa knott 20:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I never saw him being involved in any content dispute, so I can't say that he behaved either good or bad there, except the matter of the inclusion of 9/11 victims, where he accused people who considered those articles unencyclopedic as being "politically motivated", refused to accept the general consensus of not including those articles and instead insisted on having a vote on each of them individually. --Wik 21:52, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I have more recently done some editing on the 9/11 wiki myself, and I don't intend to participate any further in those votes, although I do still think they should be put to individual votes. I agree that the consensus on the matter is plain. Everyking 21:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Jmabel (19/0) ends 18:41, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel has been around since October 2003 and has about 3,500 edits. He has done a lot of nice work, including many translations (which anyone who has tried will tell you is no easy task to do well). I think he'd be a good admin. Maximus Rex 18:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm honored, but I'm not sure I want this. Could someone get in touch with me & clarify for me what it means? I'm pretty much happy with the role I've already carved out here... BTW, Jengod, I'm not a "she", Mabel is my surname. High school was hell on that count... -- Jmabel 22:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, Jwrosenzweig has convinced me that if I'm assigned this and don't much use it, no one will be bothered. On that basis, sure, if there is consensus. -- Jmabel 23:55, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  1. Maximus Rex 18:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Angela. 19:32, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  3. "Thought she already was one." jengod 20:09, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Goodness, yes! Jmabel's work on Wikipedia:Translation into English alone (both setting it up and doing translations) is worthy of a barnstar. Ashamed I didn't think to check if he was an admin. Jwrosenzweig 20:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Meelar 20:26, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Danny 22:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Tuf-Kat 00:05, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
  8. What jengod said. Markalexander100 02:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cribcage 03:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  10. A qualified contributor who doesn't really want to use admin abilities, especially blocking, is all the easier to support. --Michael Snow 17:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No need to use those abilities, but I'm sure you'll find them useful on occasion. Support. Warofdreams 18:33, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  12. john 20:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC) support[reply]
  13. Great editor. Support. →Raul654 23:06, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
  14. GrazingshipIV 00:47, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Stewart Adcock 03:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  16. A talented and diplomatic polymath -- Viajero 19:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Itai 21:48, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Kingturtle 00:59, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 172 21:16, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:David.Monniaux (17/0/0); ends 18:53, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Don't know for sure if he fits the basic requirements in terms of contributions, but I really think so. He has been here a long time. Otherwise, I see no evidence he would be a bad sysop :-); I like his contributions; he is timid so won't do self-nomination :-); and finally I love the idea of french people on en: SweetLittleFluffyThing

I do accept the nomination, thanks. :-) David.Monniaux 07:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

ah tout de même ! :-) ant

Support:

  1. About 2500 edits, btw. Meelar 17:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. john 19:26, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Angela.
  4. BCorr|Брайен 00:31, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Sam Spade 00:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC) Reading antheres nomination, I feel a need to point out that my vote is based only on DM's polite, insightful, educated demeanor, and has no basis in francophilia of any sort ;)[reply]
  6. Decumanus | Talk 02:11, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Guanaco 04:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SweetLittleFluffyThing 04:42, 3 May 2004 (UTC) (sigh, bureaucracy....)[reply]
  9. Charles Matthews 08:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  10. olivier 09:46, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Excellent choice; intelligent and fair editor. Jwrosenzweig 16:09, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  12. jengod 20:27, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Danny 22:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 172 02:04, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Cribcage 03:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  16. There you go! -- Cecropia 13:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Michael Snow 20:56, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Neutral:

User:Markalexander100 (9/3); ends 08:44, 9 May 2004

A diligent copyeditor and writer - he'll make a superb admin 172 08:43, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd be happy to accept. Markalexander100 02:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. 172 08:44, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Looks good. Infrogmation 15:20, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Danny 15:58, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jiang 04:14, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Guanaco 04:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jengod 20:45, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Cribcage 03:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Chancemill 14:02, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Beat me to it! +sj+ 22:50, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Far too few edits thus far. Kingturtle 00:49, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Excellent contributor, but he's only been here for two and a half months. Can we wait a while longer? UninvitedCompany 16:11, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'd like to see more work, too. Happy to consider again later. Cecropia 00:25, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral:

Cyrius (19/0/0); ends 5:57, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Cyrius has done an enormous amount of Wikipedia maintenance as well as being (to my knowledge) trustworthy and reasonable—an expanded user page would help in this regard. He has made ~3,500 edits since 24 December 2003. Chris Roy 05:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks, I accept the nomination. -- Cyrius|&#9998 14:33, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Chris Roy 05:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Meelar 05:58, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Everyking 06:10, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. He's done plenty of good maintainance work. I strongly support anyone willing to do that stuff on a regular basis. ;-) Isomorphic 06:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kingturtle 08:12, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cecropia 13:37, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Danny 16:00, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Angela
  9. I know it's a cliche, but I thought he was one. Support. Cribcage 17:20, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Graham  :) | Talk 21:48, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Guanaco 04:39, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Michael Snow 16:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 172 22:56, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Very active. Support. Warofdreams 18:31, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  15. GrazingshipIV 00:52, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Maximus Rex 03:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Rhymeless 06:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Andrewa 17:50, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Lst27 23:25, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Neutral:

Other:

  1. Support if he writes something more substantial that "Just some guy." on his user page and specifies an email address in his user preferences. Maximus Rex 18:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:AlainV (8/1/0); ends 9 May, 2004, 4:00 (UTC)

AlainV has been here since last October, and has made about 1000 edits. A good contributor with good writing skills. Meelar 04:00, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I accept the nomination. AlainV 06:49, 2004 May 2 (UTC)


Support:

  1. Meelar 04:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Guanaco 04:40, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cecropia 04:49, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very good choice - glad he accepted. Jwrosenzweig 16:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Michael Snow 16:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jengod 20:23, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Cribcage 03:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I believe AlainV's careful, detailed, fact-based edits to truly encyclopedic articles are uncommonly valuable. UninvitedCompany 15:42, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. Far to few edits thus far. Kingturtle 00:47, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral:


Self nominations for adminship

Misterrick (2/5) ends 06:12, 15 May 2004

I would like have the opportunity to serve the Wikipedia community on a higher level. I have made many contributions and have proved myself to be reliable, I am on and monitor the Wikipedia site on a regular basis and I get along with other Wikipedia users including many of the admins. In my contributions you will see that I have kept my composure when pages that had contributed to were vandalized, Either I or another Wiki user reverted the page back to it's original text without any outbursts or anger on my part. I have also created a few new Wikipedia article which I thought would be in the interest of the Wiki community. I would also keep my Internet Relay Chat program open and set to the #wikipedia channel on the freenode.net server in the event that a user (including admins and newbies) need to contact me posthaste. Misterrick, 07:10, 08 May 2004 (UTC).[reply]

Support

  1. Support. Less than 500 edits -- but they date to October 2003, and they all look good. I know Kingturtle prefers to see 3000+ edits from admin nominees, but I think promoting different personality types is helpful. There are some who can afford to spend upward of four hours every day working on Wikipedia, but that's one certain type of personality -- and I don't think that personality type should dominate the admin staff. I'd like to see different types of people among the admin ranks, and Misterrick appears an ideal candidate. Cribcage 06:42, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand skepticism regarding user's repeated self-nomination, but I doubt this is anything sinister -- more likely, it's a bit of a harmless fixation from an otherwise productive user. Regardless, this nomination seems destined to fail, as well, so I suppose removal should be imminent. Cribcage 05:35, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me add: I understand why a well-intentioned user might fixate on obtaining adminship. We explain: "Sysops are...just...Wikipedia users who have had performance- and security-based restrictions on a couple of features lifted because they seemed like trustworthy folks and asked nicely." If we're going to vote based on the idea that it's a promotion, rather than something analogous to the resolution of an introductory trial, then we should alter the policy accordingly. Cribcage 05:44, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is one possibility; another, which is my reason for wariness, is that people who repeatedly request adminship view it not as a thankless and difficult responsibility, but as a position of power. I don't know; do you? Would someone driven by a lust for power be honest about it, if he knew that that honesty would nix his chances? I prefer to err on the side of caution. —No-One Jones 06:13, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lst27 23:22, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Less than 300 edits. Also, the nomination text seems to be copied verbatim from an earlier nomination of Alex Plank. --Wik 08:53, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry Wik, But what I wrote was my own words, It would seem that Alex Plank plagiarized my previous nomination of February 2004. Do you still have any objections? Please post. Misterrick 15:27, 08 May 2004.
  2. Oppose without prejudice. Really too few edits over seven months and many of those minor or corrections of corrections. Everyone can't be on the ball all the time but it wouldn't better if a sysop could have more presence here. Happy to look again in a few months. Cecropia 00:23, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Far too few edits for me to judge this users candidacy. Kingturtle 20:42, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Looking at his contributions, Misterrick seems more interested in becoming an admin than anything else. This is the fourth time he's nominated himself [1] [2] [3]. -- Cyrius|&#9998 03:24, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Frequently-repeated requests for adminship make me leery. —No-One Jones 03:30, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Too few edits. If he has 300 now, how many did he have when he first nominated himself? -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:19, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    22. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:40, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Requests for bureaucratship

Please add new requests at the top of this section

Other requests

Possible misuses of administrator powers

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=3524454"