Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Important notes

Note: A closely related vote is going on at meta:Developer access - if the vote is approved, the chosen users will share the non-technical responsibilities and authority presently held by Brion Vibber, Tim Starling, and the other developers. Nominate your favorite colleague today, and don't forget to vote!

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

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 and Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats.

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

Jor; (9/3/0) ends 05:10, 5 April, 2004 (UTC)

Jor has been here for more than three months and in that time has made 3800 edits. Lots of productive work done. He deserves to be a sysop. Meelar 05:12, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination. Having read Wikipedia:Administrators, I accept. — Jor (Talk) 10:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Meelar 05:12, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Fun contributions. Support. Fennec 05:15, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. Support. Nicely edited a lot of esoterica and is dedicated. Cecropia 05:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Support. Thought he already was one. :) RADICALBENDER★ 05:20, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
5. Great contributions, and, in my experience, a very personable person. Also, I'm not sure if it was intentional, but Jor's having the bizarre 'Inserted by a true Eldar' comment at the top of their talk page never ceases to amuse me. Chris Roy 06:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
6. Support. →Raul654 14:53, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
7. Speaking from my experience with Jor, he is an excellent editor and a reasonable person. I've not been involved in the apparently controversial Polish/German issue, but I am confident based on what I've seen that he would do well. Jwrosenzweig 16:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. Support. Excellent contributer. Go Jor! -- Itai 18:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
9. Support. I've dealt with Jor/darkelf on several subjects and found him (?) to be reasonable, levelheaded, and conscientious. I for one have been around this particular block enough not to fall for the tired old "he's a nazi/he's a zionist/he's a commie/he's a homo/he's lefthanded" line. In such namecalling the seeds of tyranny lie. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Strongly oppose. Rude German-reactionary POV pusher who asked me "Does this appease your Polish nationalism?" when I tried to call Szczecin by its current name. And later regarding Świnoujście: "I merely shifted them because known vandal User:Wik insists on adding 'former'" and "Screw this, I've better things to do than try and fix Wik's vandalism." See here how Jor changes the correct names Świnoujście and Szczecin, referring to the present Polish cities, to the old German names Swinemünde and Stettin! --Wik 07:00, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
   • I invite anyone to look at the entire edit history of the page and talk page. I admit that seeing all my edits blatantly reverted time after time by "Wik" did frustrate me, and I indeed did take a time out for about a week (which is what the last quote "Wik" gives refers to). The entire story can easily be seen in the article's edit history, but see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik/Evidence#Jor. — Jor (Talk) 10:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
   • Oppose. Nazi-sympathizer who's only valid articles are about elfs.
     • Posted by an anon who is now blocked. Removing from count. Furthermore I take offense to the nazi implication. — Jor (Talk) 13:02, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Cautiosly oppose. A person who takes as his own task to "remove from count" votes against himself[1] does not seem to have sufficient trust in other wikipedians — seems too eager to protect his own prestige and too eager to become administrator.--Ruhrjung 13:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
   • As far as I know anons are not allowed to vote, and this user's contributions are all vandalism. It has nothing to do with the fact this happens to be on my poll, I'd remove it from anyone's vote (and as you can see I left it visible). — Jor (Talk) 13:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. Danny 12:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comment:

I don't see explicitly where anons can't vote (maybe I missed it) but insofar as the toctally means anything, perhaps an anon shouldn't count, and I feel it definitely shouldn't count if someone characterizes someone as "Nazi," "Commie," "Racist," or other such term. If they want their vote to be recognized numerically I think they should at least have a user name. Cecropia 14:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anon voting is discussed in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_11 — Jor (Talk) 14:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Decumanus; (15/0/1) ends 18:45 3 Apr (UTC)

Decumanus has been here about 3 months and has about 5,800 edits. He has created dozens of well written nonstub articles, many with properly licensed images. He communicates well, acts responsibly, and has a good understanding of wikipedia. I think he would make an excellent administrator. Maximus Rex 18:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I accept. Thank you. I would like to be able to fight vandalism more easily and do my share of housework on Wikipedia:Images for deletion and other maintenance pages. -- Decumanus | Talk 16:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Maximus Rex 18:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Support. Decumanus' work has been huge. I know he'd be a plus! Cecropia 18:48, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. Danny 19:04, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Angela. No longer too soon.
5. By all means, support! Dysprosia 01:47, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
6. Absolutely. I was about to do this myself. Meelar 01:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
7. Despite some reservations about Quickpoll votes, he deserves it. GrazingshipIV 05:55, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
8. +sj+ 15:12, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC) Indeed.
9. Bkonrad | Talk 16:04, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) I inadvertently added my name to the wrong list. Decumanus has made valuable contributions to many articles, and has always been very civil in discussions (even after I made dumb edits to a whole lot of articles)
10. Support — Jor (Talk) 16:10, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
11. Support. RADICALBENDER★ 16:29, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
12. Support with absolute confidence. LUDRAMAN | T 20:06, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) - PS Decumanus is a great contributer on the Irish Wikipedia too...
13. Support strongly. RickK | Talk 22:16, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
14. Ashamed of myself for not nominating Decumanus -- the ideal temperament for admin! Jwrosenzweig 16:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
15. Jiang 22:47, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Neutral:

1. anthony 19:17, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
   • Bkonrad | Talk 14:10, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia (14/5/1) ends 03:55, 3 Apr 2004

Cecropia has been involved in some hot editing at George W. Bush and has stayed cool. He is a constant presence on the talk page, and has been a very useful contributor on this and other topics. Here for 3 months, over 800 edits. Meelar 03:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for nomination, Meelar. I'm honored and pleased and hope the community will agree with you. I am interested in and try to contribute on a range of non-contentious subjects that I believe will add to Wikipedia. On subjects where I have a POV I try to see to it that my postings are accurate and document whenever I can. I try to honor those who disagree with me by being straightforward as to where I'm coming from. I suppose, to quote Marlowe's Faust, that "disputing" is one of the pleasures of an intellectual life, but I'm most pleased when we can reach a consensus, as we seem to on the Terrorism/Draft. Cecropia 04:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Meelar 03:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Ambivalenthysteria 10:19, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. Tuf-Kat 14:18, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
4. Danny 14:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
5. Bkonrad | Talk 14:46, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
6. — Jor (Talk) 15:56, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) We can use people that can keep their heads cool!
7. I don't think the guidelines for sysophood are too important. Cecropia is a good example of why you don't need x number of edits to be a sysop. Ludraman | Talk 19:01, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. GrazingshipIV 05:56, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
9. Decumanus | Talk 16:15, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
10. Isomorphic 01:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) - He has probably been the most constructive contributor in the (generally well-behaved) discussion over terrorism/draft. Maintains civility. A pleasure to work with. Isomorphic 01:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
11. If Isomorphic trusts him, I do. →Raul654 14:54, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
12. A solid contributor. Jwrosenzweig 17:44, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
13. I'm seriously missing something here. If there is a negative POV in an article and a user solicits a counter POV, that's supposed to make the article NPOV. That doesn't mean that the user who contributed the counter POV is inherently POV him/herself, it means they're trying to "neutralize" the article. All in all, I've seen nothing but proper civility here at this discussion and feel that Cecropia has handled himself admirably. This is a rare case where I wasn't going to vote but was impressed by the user enough to vote in the positive. RADICALBENDER★ 18:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hell, no! If there is POV you should edit it, not add more nonsense. We do not need entries that go like "George W. Bush is called a fascist and a warmonger. He is also a very honourable person that was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize." Get-back-world-respect 21:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

1. Jiang 22:48, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not yet enough experience here, IMHO. This is nothing personal. I will most probably support at a later date. Cecropia is a valued contributor. Kingturtle 17:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. This user set his personal support for George W. Bush over the interest of an unbiased community in numerous cases. E.g. he frequently used valuing expressions like "the argument is countered", and even included a lengthy paragraph about "French, German, Russian commercial conenction to Saddam's Iraq" in the GWBush entry. Get-back-world-respect 15:05, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   I don't know how appropriate it is for Get-back-world-respect to carry his personal feud over to this forum, but I am don't hide my opinions behind bogus justification ("the article is too large") but I see to it that my edits are as accurate and neutral as they can be, I supply respected citations on contentious subjects (including the French-German-Russian issue, where my main source was BBC), and I stand by the integrity of my submissions. I encourage anyone here to judge my work and my justifications in talk before voting for or against me. Cecropia 16:29, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   Cecropia, feel free to provide any link proving that I tried "to hide my opinions" behind the bogus sole justification "the article is too large" if I should ever be nominated for adminship - although I do not want to be an admin here anyways. In the meantime, you may explain why someone should be an admin here who thinks that a whole paragraph about alleged "French, German, Russian commercial conenction to Saddam's Iraq" is vital to the GWBush entry. Get-back-world-respect 23:22, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   I was not referring to you personally except to note your carrying over your personal animosity toward to me to this forum, nor will I respond to an attempt to re-fight the war in Iraq here. I am trying to give those reading and voting here my philosophy of editing, and as I said, it will stand or fall on its own. Cecropia 00:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   Not trying to re-fight the Iraq war here but on the GWBush entry? Unless you can explain why the paragraph was needed I do not see why you should be granted adminship. Get-back-world-respect 14:44, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   Now I'm sad! I thought you supported me. ;-) Cecropia 14:48, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   Any valuable statements or answers to the question? Get-back-world-respect 15:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   Well then, see talk. Cecropia 17:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

3. I find it funny how Cecropia is being nominated for "keeping it cool" with the George Bush article, when (s)He has been just as POV as the rest of them (pro-Bush POV). I don't claim to be any better, but at least I don't try to pretend not to have any bias when my edits show completely otherwise. "Supporters of the administration counter...", removal of the accusation that the war broke international law, , etc. Heck, at least I can point to a couple edits that I did that were favorable to Bush. What have you done, at all, that wasn't favorable to Bush? No offense to Cecropia personally - this is an article for which it will be very hard to find anyone who doesn't have a POV. Rei

   Now, in fairness, Rei, I feel I do not try to hide my POV. The Bush article has been one I've actively worked on partly because it is was so openly hostile to the man while the Kerry article is so warm and fuzzy. As to POV in general, of course editors have a POV; virtually anyone of intellect does (and quite a few of little intellect, unfortunately). It is the writing where s/he strives to present NPOV. On an article like GWB though, where passions run so strong, I suppose the best we can hope for is balance, rather than strict NPOV. I'm a little disappointed that you've joined in here because I feel that we were able to reach at least a friendly armisitice in out discussions, if not agreement. I am satisfied that Wikipedians are judging me on my merits, but since the only central complaint with me is over the GWB article, can I avoid getting the impression that some feel the qualification for an admin is to assiduously avoid controversal topics? I get the unpleasant feeling from GBWR that he feels that Bush is so bad that he finds it necessary not only to have him tried for war crimes, but that anyone who supports him in any way should be condemned as well. Cecropia 18:08, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   The question is not whether Cecropia has a POV. Everyone has one. Nor is the question whether you agree with his POV. It's whether he is respectful and follows the rules while expressing it. From my experience, this is the case. The fact that he hasn't made any anti-Bush edits to the page is meaningless, since we have plenty of users (and even more anons) who will happilly add anything negative about Bush. There's no need for him to add more. Isomorphic 18:13, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   The question is whether one can have an opinion and still edit in a neutral way. In my eyes, Cecropia cannot, two others agree. Get-back-world-respect 21:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

4. Does not follow NPOV. --Wik 17:55, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
5. I have some issues with the various discussions above. I would be more comfortable at a later date when I've seen more. - Texture 22:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. It is unclear to me why this person needs would better benefit the community with admin powers. -anthony

Well, I don't think that he needs it per se--no one person actually needs admin powers. I just think that both him and the community would benefit from it--Lord knows I couldn't deal with George W. Bush without my "rollback" button. Meelar 18:01, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fennec; (21/4/4) ends 00:41 3 April 2004

Fennec has been here for two months and made 635 edits. In that time, he has acted responsibly, contributing to the encyclopedia and the general dialogue surrounding its development. I think he would be a good sysop. Danny 00:41, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. I'd... hmm, it seems standard practice is "be honored to accept", so I'll blatantly steal that phrase from below. - Fennec 00:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Timwi 00:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Danny 00:46, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. Although he is relativly new to Wikipedia, I support. Good to work with. Ludraman | Talk 00:47, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Fennec's stats may not look impressive, but he is very active on the IRC channel, and has helped fight off vandalism and contributed to policy discussions on multiple occasions (notably helping to document the Bird/Brain affair) -- being consistently thoughtful, humorous, inquisitive and courteous. I was going to nominate him two couple weeks ago until I saw how new he was; but RfA votes should be based upon reputation and past actions; based on those criteriaFennec will make an excellent admin. -- Seth Ilys 00:51, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
5. Definitely. ugen64 01:13, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
6. Fennec is relatively new, but he has been very active in that time and appears to have an excellent understanding of Wikipedia policies. Angela. 01:13, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
7. Support. Nice to have you. Meelar 01:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. Support. I know him from other IRC channels too, and his Edit history looks good too. He won't wreak havoc for sure. --moeffju 01:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
9. Support. I'll trust the others who can vouch for him. Moncrief 01:27, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
10. Again a good case for flexibility of guidelines. Unlikely to act any worse, no matter how long we wait. -- J-V Heiskanen 04:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
11. Support. Confident that he'd do well. Ambivalenthysteria 10:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
12. Support. Looks good to me. -- ChrisO 14:10, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
13. Tuf-Kat 14:18, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
14. GrazingshipIV 16:47, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
15. It is a little early, but my opinion of them, and their behaviour, is unlikely to change. Maximus Rex 05:16, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
16. Definite support! --Merovingian ↕ Talk 05:51, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
17. Perl (he would make a great admin)
18. Cecropia 18:29, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) I respect (and initially was swayed by) those who feel 3 months or whatever should be a minimum, but I have to support Fennec based on his record because he seems to have the makings of a fine admin.
19. BCorr|Брайен 02:14, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC) Will make an excellent admin.
20. Maybe some young sysop blood will help everything Quinwound 05:58, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
21. Sure, he's pretty new.. but I think he's both friendly and trustworthy. Hadal 20:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Too new. --Wik 00:55, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
2. Too new. anthony
3. At a later date, I will most probably support. It is just too soon, according to my personal gauge for this. Still too few edits. P.S. I love the birds. Kingturtle 17:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Too new, will support if nominated again in a month or so -- Graham  :) | Talk 18:54, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

1. Argh, once again I am hesitant. I had just looked at Fennec, thought "Hmmm, only 2 months here....I'll nominate in 3-4 weeks". 2 months is well below the guideline most of the community supports....I'll have to think about this, and am neutral in the meantime. Jwrosenzweig 00:48, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. I like the fox, but a bit too early. Dori | Talk 01:15, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
3. Too new I think. I'll probably support later. — Jor (Talk) 15:56, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Texture 18:10, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Andrewa; (19/0) ends 02:52, 2 Apr 2004

Andrewa is active and friendly on vfd and other pages, and has roughly 2600 edits in the year that he's been here. I spotted him on Vfd making some remark about "Do I need to be an admin to see that?". Trustworthy. Meelar 02:52, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Accepted. Thank you. Andrewa 08:58, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Meelar 02:52, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Andrewa is one of the few I often see taking care of those someone-should-do-it type chores that I got too lazy for once the novelty wore off. Excellent choice, I actually thought he was a sysop already. Mkweise 03:48, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. Tuf-Kat 05:46, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
4. Support. Good contributor, and I think he'd make a good admin. →Raul654 09:03, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
5. I agree with Mkweise theresa knott 10:16, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
6. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:41, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
7. Support. RADICALBENDER★ 13:45, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. I thought he was one already too... -- Graham  :) | Talk 15:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
9. GrazingshipIV 16:24, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
10. Angela. 16:31, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
11. A very good contributor. Jwrosenzweig 16:33, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
12. Texture 16:50, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
13. Ya. Very good, helpful and active Wikipedian. Ludraman | Talk 19:12, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
14. Yup. Danny 00:43, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
15. A user whose initial experience of wikipedia was somewhat rocky, but who showed great character by transforming that experience in ways that benefited the culture of wikipedia to positive long term effect. Definitely one of the best of us. -- J-V Heiskanen 00:52, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
16. Support. He has shown good judgement. -- llywrch 02:17, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
17. No objections at all. — Jor (Talk) 15:56, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
18. Woodrow 19:19, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) - I thought he already was one. Excellent choice!
19. Support. Fennec 17:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mkweise; (11/0) ends 22:48, 31 Mar 2004

Mkweise has been here since August 2003 and has about 900 edits. He has done a lot of good work and communicates well with others. I think he would make an excellent administrator. Cautious 22:48, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd be honored to accept...though I hope your decision to nominate me wasn't motivated by the fact that I happen to be largely on your side in a certain NPOV controversy. Also, I've been around since the autumn of 2002 (registered as mkweise since January 2003) and, while I haven't actually counted my edits, I'm sure they're a lot more than 900. Mkweise 01:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just a note, not a vote: Mkweise has over 3,100 edits to his name. Chris Roy 04:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Cautious 22:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Seaman 22:56, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
3. Danny 04:09, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Tuf-Kat 21:17, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
5. Moncrief 00:32, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
6. jengod 21:32, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
7. Has made useful edits on a wide range of subjects. Happy to support Cecropia 17:28, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. Kingturtle 17:48, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
9. Decumanus | Talk 16:21, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
10. Ludraman | Talk 19:42, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
11. GrazingshipIV 17:58, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comment:

• Mkweise, I reserve any vote since I don't know you and don't think you are being involved by any dark purpose on your part. However, seeing Cautious and Seaman side by side (after the problems and questions about Seaman) would make me (were it me) reject the nomination (and surely ensure renomination at a later date.) - Texture 03:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I must agree. — Jor (Talk) 15:56, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth; (27/0) ends 14:54, 31 Mar 2004

DJ Clayworth has been here since July 2003 and has about 3,900 edits. He has done a lot of good work and communicates well with others. I think he would make an excellent administrator. Maximus Rex 14:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wow. With such a show of support, how can I decline? DJ Clayworth 21:13, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Maximus Rex 14:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Rdash | Talk 15:20, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
3. Adam Bishop 15:21, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Excellent choice. (As usual, "I thought he was one already!") Jwrosenzweig 16:34, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
5. moink 17:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
6. Excellent choice. Angela. 18:53, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
7. Stewart Adcock 20:58, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. Meelar 21:55, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
9. jengod 01:02, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
10. Support. Seen naught but good edits. — Jor (Talk) 03:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
11. →Raul654 03:41, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
12. Danny 04:09, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
13. Agreed! Hadal 21:11, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
14. Tuf-Kat 21:17, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
15. Michael Snow 21:27, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
16. Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
17. J-V Heiskanen 22:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) (Echo Jwrosenzweig; I sometimes wonder how many "slam dunks" there still are at any time who trudge along with ordinary user rights, just waiting to be nominated... )
18. Moncrief 00:33, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
19. theresa knott 10:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
20. Support. RADICALBENDER★ 13:45, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
21. Another one whom I'm surprised they're not already... -- Graham  :) | Talk 15:18, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
22. GrazingshipIV 16:29, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
23. Texture 16:54, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
24. Decumanus | Talk 18:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
25. BCorr|Брайен 20:32, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
26. Quinwound 06:06, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
27. Jiang 22:49, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Self nominations for adminship

Please add new requests to the top

Sverdrup; (12/0/0) vote ends 13:40, 5 April 2004

Hello, I am the user Sverdrup since mid-october last year. In the wikiworld, I was "brought up" at the swedish site Susning.nu, but I migrated here for the main reasons GFDL, NPOV and sysops. If you look at my edits there are a quite large fraction of them being in the Wikipedia namespace and now, I'd like to serve the Wikipedians. — Sverdrup 13:31, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Son, we'll give you the job if you cut your hair and put on some decent clothes. Just kidding, I wholeheartedly support. Mkweise 13:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Excellent work all around. Support. - Seth Ilys 13:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. Texture 14:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Ruhrjung 14:03, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
5. Dori | Talk 16:13, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
6. Süppørt ;-) — Jor (Talk) 16:14, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
7. Support -- I've seen good work. Jwrosenzweig 16:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. Support. RADICALBENDER★ 17:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
9. Support. Cecropia 18:15, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) Hey, I don't mind the haircut, even if the '60s are over (waaay over). Hey, I was a Beatnik way back when (when the term Hippie still implied jazz musician).
10. Sverdrup will make a great sysop. Angela. 22:32, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
11. Support. I'm normally wary of self-nominations, but I think Sverdrup is one of The Overlooked - those so clearly qualified for sysophood that we forget they aren't one already. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:53, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
12. Meelar 22:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
13. Jiang 22:56, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

1. Oh, look...another hippie! --Eric Cartman

AdamRetchless; (3/2), vote ends 00:29, 5 April 2004

Hello. I would like admin status so that I can quickly revert vandalism. I've been doing that more and more recently and it is becoming a pain. I'm sure you know how to see my work, so I won't comment on it. I dislike conflict and would rather walk-away from a minor dispute rather than enter an edit war. I also am generally annoyed by locked pages, so I won't lock them lightly (but I won't unlock them without reason either). I've witnessed a couple edit wars recently (Fascism and DNA), so I have a feel for how those things go. After many years of internet arguing, I think I've learned how to (almost) completely avoid getting agitated over arguments or trolling. I also feel that I am good at finding answers to my questions about Wikipedia and I accept criticism from fellow Wikipedians. Finally, as I understand admin'n, this is not a commitment to constantly be involved. Just so you know, I am likely to disappear for months at a time and then reappear and do a barrage of editing for a few months. I hope to have many years of contributions ahead of me, so a few months isn't a big deal. AdamRetchless 00:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

p.s. Should I notify my co-authors that I am seeking admin status?

Support:

1. Not a huge contributor, but knows what he's doing and has demonstrated impartiality and calmness in POV disputes. Mkweise 07:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Agreed. - Woodrow 12:10, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. Support. LUDRAMAN | T 16:10, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. You seem like a good guy, and I like what you said in your nomination. Please renominate yourself (or remind me to nominate you) when you get to 1000 edits or so. 437 just isn't enough for me. moink 00:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. All users should have the ability to revert quickly. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 00:46, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Calmypal (2/5/0);vote ends 7:00, 4 April 2004

I've been here for about 6 months and have about 500 edits. I think that's long enough to be trusted. Time here, number of edits, and trustworthiness seem to be the only consideration in sysopping, so let the voting begin! By the way, if changing my signature often will be a problem, please tell me so. I'll (unhappily) stick with signing comments "Calmypal". - Woodrow 19:05, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Stats - circa 800 edits, been here since Nov 03. Ludraman | Talk 19:25, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. A wikipedian who knows how to use the summary box - make him a sysop quick! Ludraman | Talk 19:25, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. My experience with Calmypal has been very positive. Jwrosenzweig 17:12, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Oppose because of the mess/edit wars that happened at MediaWiki:Uspresidents (talk). RADICALBENDER★ 19:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. User says about himself: "He is currently King of the Sovereign Nation of Paxania, a micronation contained within his own home." We don't need more of this type. --Wik 19:22, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
   • Wouldn't it be better to judge users on their contributions to articles rather than what they put on their user pages? LUDRAMAN | T 20:01, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. While it's nice to have hyperimaginative folks such as yourself around, and I personally find your antics entertaining, I think boring people tend to make better sysops. Mkweise 19:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Not enough experience yet with the community. Kingturtle 20:02, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
5. Oppose strongly. After he unilaterially added the USpresidents footer, he re-added it despite having no consensus to do so and commented "As long as you can keep removing it, I can keep adding it". His comments at MediaWiki talk:Uspresidents indicate that he is either dumb or trolling. He did this after being criticized for signing his name as "wikipedia". Jiang 22:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

Comments:

Rebuttals:

Oppose because of the mess/edit wars that happened at MediaWiki:Uspresidents (talk). RADICALBENDER★ 19:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I knew that would come up. One argument that is now over disqualifies me forever? I'm definitely frustrated by the campaign against the Continental presidents and even the message altogether, but it's no longer a major issue. - Woodrow 19:19, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You'll notice that I never said that it would disqualify you forever. In my mind, it disqualifies you now, however. I watched the ongoing discussion and I still feel (although, I will say that Jiang is probably partially at fault) that no one ever worked to resolve that issue and that everyone, you included, were very antagonistic with each other about the whole matter. That concerns me greatly as far as "admin material" goes. RADICALBENDER★ 19:48, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think I was acting just a tad belligerent here right now, too. Sorry. Anyway, the argument is over (?) and I think it's time to move on. - Woodrow 19:52, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User says about himself: "He is currently King of the Sovereign Nation of Paxania, a micronation contained within his own home." We don't need more of this type. --Wik 19:22, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

I hope there'll be no more confusion about my country (and its language, currently in development). Anyway, I AM calling myself a king. I AM NOT making a page about my country, mainly because its "permanent population" amounts to one. - Woodrow 19:45, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey, can we get him to "annex" the Wikimedia servers so that we don't have to worry anymore about whether we violate the laws of other jurisdictions (like copyright)? --Michael Snow 17:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Clearly, a royal marriage would be required in order to establish diplomatic ties. Am I to understand you've got a comely virgin daughter of suitable age to spare for this purpose? Mkweise 17:28, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It depends on how you define diplomatic ties. If any of those serving on your nation's Supreme Court would happen to have an unmarried daughter of suitable age, please inform me. - His Royal Highness King Calvin of Paxania, Member of the Order of the Cheetah, Duke of Kitchen, Earl of Closylvania, Duke of Earl, Council Chairman, and Protector of Canada 21:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

Please add new requests to the top

Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on other Wikipedias

See m:Interwiki requests for adminship.

Possible Misuses of Administrator Powers

• See Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions and Wikipedia:Possible misuses of admin privileges