Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed Poor (talk | contribs) at 22:01, 17 February 2004 (more about bureaucrat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Communitypage 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 a variety of articles without often getting into conflicts with other users.

Nomination. Users can nominate other users for administrator. Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nor can they nominate others. The absolute minimum requirement to be involved with adminship matters is to have a username in the system.
Self-nomination. If you want to nominate yourself to become an administrator, it is recommended that you have been a user for a reasonable period of time - long enough to be regarded as 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 or bureaucrat 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

Redwolf

I hereby nominate RedWolf for adminship. Since his first edit on 26 Oct 2003, he has made over 6000 edits, a significant proportion of which relate to disambiguation. He has authored many new articles and submitted several wonderful pictures. As far as I can tell, he hasn't been involved in any dispute, which seems to be a feat in itself at the moment. RedWolf clearly has a good understanding of Wikipedia and I think he will make a fine admin. Stewart Adcock 17:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. (Based on above, haven't verified... somebody please verify) --Hemanshu 17:47, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Tuf-Kat

ChrisO

ChrisO is a good contributor and should be a sysop if he wants. He has shown remarkable patience with difficult users. --Wik 00:06, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • (Not a vote) - User has been here since October 21 and has 940 edits. →Raul654 00:10, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Did a complete rewrite of Kosovo War that was really needed, and has handled himself well with those that brought it to that state. Dori | Talk 00:14, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Chris appears to have a good understanding of Wikipedia and would make a good sysop. Angela. 07:39, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Immense patience shown. Morwen 07:40, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A really good contributor and works towards NPOV on controversial articles on central/east european topics. Secretlondon 07:51, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support 172 08:22, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support; nothing but net, as far I can see... Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 09:19, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Tuf-Kat
  • Support. I've known Chris O since the early days of the Scientology Internet war. He has treated this infamously controversial subject with honesty and lack of bias, and he has contributed enormously to those subjects here along with many others. --Modemac 20:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've seen nothing but good from Mr. O. --No-One Jones 21:29, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

DavidWBrooks

I nominate DavidWBrooks -- he'd been a help today at Curse of the Bambino...when I went to thank him, I realized he'd been here since January 2003, with over 1,100 edits. He seems like a real pleasant and intelligent fellow, and I think he would make an excellent admin. Jwrosenzweig 21:41, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jengod

I'd like to nominate Jengod. She's been here since May 2003, and has over 4,500 edits. She's quite pleasant to work with. I thought she was an admin already, but apparently she's not. →Raul654 05:23, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you kindly Mr. Kitty in a Glass man. I didn't know if I wanted to get deeper in, but I suspect I was kidding myself--I'm pretty far deep in already. :) jengod 06:30, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC) (Haha - you don't get called that everyday :) →Raul654 22:19, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC))

  • Support Tuf-Kat
  • eek! Support. --Jiang
  • Good choice -- Viajero 09:26, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Bmills 09:32, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Defer (for now) Support (in light of explanation below). If Jiang is supporting you then I guess things are OK, but could you explain what was going on at Leland Stanford? Dori | Talk 16:12, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, I bumped into that a few days ago too. What is with that? Stubbornness will lead to many many more stupid edit wars over puny matters like that. Quite unnecessary. --Menchi 16:48, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • FWIW, I was editing at home on my 56K modem (slooooow) and so didn't check the edit history--if I'd known it was Jiang I would have totally stepped off--I wasn't entirely sure if my edits were contradicting someone or if it was just a wonky server. Anyway, after I saw Jiang's notes the next day and did some investigation, I'm now totally on board with the "anything bigger than a paragraph is a short article, but not a stub" train. jengod 16:54, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Since it's merely a misunderstanding, I'll support Jennifer. She's been great otherwise. --Menchi 17:00, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support unconditionally. -- Decumanus 22:14, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Quality work. Meelar 23:35, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good balance of dedication and positive attitude. Jwrosenzweig 00:10, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Jengod has good taste in television programming. --Ed Senft! 00:20, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Danny 17:30, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Jake 22:00, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Warofdreams 16:13, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Hemanshu 17:49, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Kaihsu 20:51, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)

Seth Ilys

Seth Ilys has been around since December 20, 2003 and has made over 2000 edits. My only grudge against him is the stub spamming during the 200000 article marathon, but they are legitimate articles. He looks dedicated. I am nominating him for adminship because of his comments in Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion. I think that a hard-working user should become an administrator when they start running into barriers in the course of their work. silsor 22:42, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

I accept the nomination. In defense of my introduction of a significant number of stubs at the beginning of February: I had been working on members of the North Carolina General Assembly during the day preceding the 200k mark, and I intentionally withheld submitting the stubs until after the milestone was reached (as can be verified by the times of submission). - Seth Ilys 22:50, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I withdraw my acceptance of the nomination; I decline to hold authority in dubious or secretive organizational structures, and the lack of transparency codified by the Arbitration Committee's stated policies qualifies Wikipedia as such. -- Seth Ilys 22:59, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But adminship isn't a position of authority. silsor 00:04, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
As an administrator, I'd be in a position to uphold or act against decisions of the committee. To support, or to take no action with regards to their rulings would constitute approval of secret deliberation, to act against them would be a violation of trust against those who believed I would be a socially acceptable admin (which means upholding widely accepted policies). I've seen first-hand the terrible abuses that secret organizations and their protectors have brought, and I simply will not be a part of it or anything that smells of it. It's just that simple. -- Seth Ilys 01:39, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Er....the point of being an admin is to help keep the database clean. There is no glory in being an admin. The point involves daily, weekly and monthly maintenance. The key responsibilities granted to admins are deleting/undeleting and protecting/unprotecting. The bottomline is admins are janitors. It is a thankless job, really. Kingturtle 02:05, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Then perhaps it's better off that I not be an admin. Honestly, the only thing I ever imagined doing with admin powers is updating the main page. Fighting vandalism and setting policy just doesn't appeal to me; building content does. -- Seth Ilys 02:36, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If all you would want to do with admin abilities is to be able to update the main page, that's fine. There's no need to even promise to actually use any admin abilities when getting adminship... Κσυπ Cyp   09:21, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Seth, if updating main page is all you want to do, i assure you, you are not going to run into "the committee" you refer to. Kingturtle 17:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Unsure. He's only been here since Dec 20 (less than 2 months), but in that time he's racked up an impressive 2,500 edits. I'd be a lot more comfortable if this nomination were made in another two months. →Raul654 07:25, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A hardworking, fair-minded wikiholic who responds accordingly to conflicts. His work on the table on U.S. Democratic Party presidential nomination, 2004 has been mighty impressive. The table is quite elaborate, is packed with many different pieces of information, yet is easy as pie to follow. Another fine example of his work is the List of members of the North Carolina General Assembly, 2003-2004 session, which is wonderfully thorough. He created each Assemblyperson's page AND uploaded each of their photos. Kingturtle 15:27, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with Kingturtle. The Democratic nomination vote table is impressive and useful work. I've seen nothing but goodness spot-checking his other work. -- RobLa 17:25, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Danny 17:30, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Meelar 21:14, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Two months is dangerously early. Angela. 21:53, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I believe I was made an admin after only 2-3 months of useful edits... ugen64 23:39, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Charles Matthews

I would like to nominate Charles Matthews for adminship. He has been here since June 24, 2003 and has over 4800 edits. Tons of great work on Mathematics topics. I am surprised that he is not an admin yet. Dori | Talk 17:53, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

It is pleasant to be nominated, if not exactly a shock. I have sysop-level status on another wiki, and was in no hurry to have that here; since I'm taking a time out from the other site, I'd now accept it on WP. Charles Matthews 22:43, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. - snoyes 18:13, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, if he is interested Revolver 18:16, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Most definately support. Dysprosia 23:15, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Sure. Those mathematics stuff he did look really good. ---Menchi 03:28, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. His good work goes way beyond maths. Bmills 09:34, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Pakaran. 00:01, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Hemanshu 17:50, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stewartadcock

Stewart has been entangled in our web of shame since Nov 10 of last year, and has made over 1000 edits since. He's a solid contributor in protein related stuff, and on mountain climbing topics. He's also done a lot of spelling fixing and link tidying too. He seems to be a total stranger to conflict, handing debate on Talk:Protein structure prediction and Talk:DNA with almost Rosenzweigian calm. Stewart seems like a safe pair of hands. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou. So long as knowing what "Rosenzweigian calm" means isn't a prerequiste for adminship, I would be more than happy to accept. Stewart Adcock 17:29, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. "I thought he was one already." (I know, I know, how unoriginal can one get :P -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 03:47, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Coped well with Lir on DNA and has made some great contributions. Angela. 08:59, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Kaihsu 12:19, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)
  • Whether the referenced calm is mine or Vicki's, how could I fail to offer my support? :) Jwrosenzweig 16:35, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - 大将军, 都督中外诸军事 (talk) 03:05, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Yep. We need more enthusiastic chemists here. ---Menchi 03:28, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • Support --Hemanshu 17:51, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- anyone who can get Angela and Lir both to like them, must have something extraordinary. This I got to see! --Uncle Ed 20:21, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

KRS

KRS has been here since July, 2003 and is credited with around 1000 quality edits. She is very constructive and has made significant and informed creations and edits in the fields of architecture, literature and literary movements and in topics related to India besides being consistent, polite and sensitive in discussions. I am sure KRS will make a responsible admin. Chancemill 16:23, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

I am happy to be nominated and in deference to the nomination and support, I accept. However,I don't think that my contribution would be anywhere as prolific as the rest of the admins. I would be happy either way, whether I am accepted or not KRS 18:11, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Requests for adminship

Please add new requests to the top

Ed Poor

I'd like to request "Bureaucrat" status. So I can promote sysops. I'm pretty good at discerning when a consensus has developed, and excellent at noting when the 7-day period has passed. And I used to perform the sysop promotion function a lot till my long vacation last year -- when I was one of the few developers who kept up with the Wikien-l mailing list.

For example, Stewartadcock should get the nod now. Finley McWalter nominated him on 8 Feb, and it's now 17 Feb -- which should be long enough. And 9 out of 9 comments were "support". --Uncle Ed 20:40, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Warofdreams

I have been contributing to Wikipedia since August 2003, and have been contributing around 500 edits a month (currently nearly 2500 edits). I have tried to resolve conflicts over articles with constructive discussion, and have spent some time fixing recent changes, and more on disambiguation. I would like adminship in order to fix vandalism more easily, and perhaps to ensure links on protected pages are up to date. -- Warofdreams 18:03, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. --Wik 18:17, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good contributor who handles disputes very amiably (see here for example). Jwrosenzweig 18:19, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - snoyes 18:23, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good contributor to political and geographical articles. Secretlondon 18:45, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. →Raul654 16:02, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Valued contributor, does a lot of unglamorous work. Morwen 22:45, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - 大将军, 都督中外诸军事 (talk) 03:05, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. jengod 15:47, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • SUpport. Pakaran. 00:04, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support --Hemanshu 17:57, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

De-adminship

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=2426213"