Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Viajero (talk | contribs) at 17:07, 14 December 2003 (Findlay). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:07, 14 December 2003 by Viajero (talk | contribs) (Findlay)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


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

Guidelines

Current Misplaced Pages policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Misplaced Pages 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 six months with a good number of edits. Then, add your name to the list below. 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 Misplaced Pages:Recently created admins.

Requests for adminship

Raul654

  • User:Raul654: I'd like to be an admin. I've been here since August and in that time, I've made 943 edits (mostly science, science fiction, computer, or history related - most of my time is put into writing new articles or massively expanding existing ones). The reason I ask is that I want vandalism quashing powers. --Raul654 11:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support. Alexandros 16:17, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Have you been involved in any disagreements we can look at, to see how you acted during them? I like what I've seen of your general editing. Jamesday 16:48, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think this() is a excellent example of Raul654's diplomatic demeanor that he displays when resolving issues. He is quite pleasent to converse with. Alexandros 17:17, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Three that I can think of. (1) On the List of Famous Experiments, someone (user: DJ Clayworth) moved all of the chemistry experiments into physics. To me, this was not an improvement, so I moved them back, without realizing he had made an entry into the discussion page. I apologized and we talked it out on the discussion page. (2) The second one was on Lee Atwater. I admit it - the original article I wrote was POV (it's pretty hard to write NPOV for a hatchetman). Other people came in and changed it, and the only change I objected to was calling bounce polling a research technique (it's not - see Talk:Lee Atwater) (3) On the Theory of everything page, someone posted about Gene Ray. I took it out, believing it has no place an encylopedia (at best, he's a crank). Most of the subsequent edits pretty much bear that out. In the end, someone created the List of speculative or fringe theories and linked to it there. I agreed with this (and when it came up in the votes for deletion, I voted to keep the page). Basically, I make a conscious effort to avoid inflammatory articles and edits (not hard in the areas I do), and I try to fix them when I see them. --Raul654 17:20, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support. A good contributor - sannse 22:32, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support. I have personally disagreed with Raul654, and found the experience stress free. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 16:32, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Timwi

  • Timwi -- Hi. I've been around since June, and I've been a well-behaved user all the way through. :) I don't make ground-breaking new contributions very often, but I make a lot of minor corrections and I revert vandalism. I would like to be able to help with this better, and thus, I am requesting adminship. Thank you for your attention. -- Timwi 21:49, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Support. --Jiang | Talk 21:56, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Support. Daniel Quinlan 21:57, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • Support. Secretlondon 21:57, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • Support. Pakaran 21:59, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Support. Κσυπ Cyp   23:55, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Support. I wanted to nominate him, but he disappeared off my radar for like 3 months. Menchi (Talk)â 04:13, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Oops ;-) -- Timwi 13:32, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Boilerplate:
**Support. ~~~~
  • LOL! Who made this presumptuous boilerplate?! So damn useful! --Menchi (Talk)â 04:13, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Support. Timwi is a decent person. - Mark Ryan 14:22, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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.

Docu

User:Docu has some 7000 edits since Feb. 2002. A user who's been around this long deserves adminship. --Jiang | Talk 05:40, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • Support. Lots of good work. - Hephaestos 05:47, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support. Has done a lot. Thought a lot was correcting spelling, but I'm probably confusing that with someone else.

Κσυπ Cyp   12:04, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • Support. silsor 17:00, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

Finlay McWalter

Finlay McWalter has been here for three months and made over 1100 edits in that time. He has made some excellent contributions and has a good understanding of pages like VfD and Vandalism in progress. I think he would make a excellent sysop. Angela. 03:38, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • Support from me :) Dysprosia 03:40, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support Dori | Talk 03:42, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
  • Support. Daniel Quinlan 03:43, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
  • Support - why do I think the old users are all sysops? Pakaran 03:46, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support. And not just because he reverted vandalism to my userpage a short while ago ;) His contributions have been constructive throughout, and his votes on Vfd have always been either on the mark, of darn near it. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 05:27, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
  • Yes on Findlay; I've seen good contributions from him, just can't remember where at the moment ;-) -- Viajero 17:07, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Alexandros

I would like to nominate Alexandros for adminship. He's done a lot of good work and he seems to want to be an admin. I don't see that as bad thing necessarily, and I think Alexander will help a lot with vandalisms. Dori | Talk 00:18, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

  • I think Alexandros(I) would make a great admin, I accept. Alexandros 00:22, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support. I was supposed to have nominated him yesterday, but he left. --Jiang | Talk 00:26, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Alexandros is a nice chap and a good contributor, but he has often demonstrated serious judgement problems, recently "quit" Misplaced Pages (lasting 23 hours), has removed comments not to his liking several times, and is seriously obsessed with becoming a sysop. I do not want him to quit again, but this is a bad idea. Daniel Quinlan 00:29, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Aplank has shown poor judgement. Although he has been a prolific contributor, I do not believe they would make a good sysop. Behavior such as removing negative comments about himself and this addition to Adam Carr's user page (although done a while ago) show poor judgement. His insistence on becoming a sysop and his comments about it also leads me to question if he wants to become one for the right reasons. Maximus Rex 00:40, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I wonder about his choice of humor sometimes. That borders on vandalism (and I'd warn an anon for it, frankly). Pakaran 00:49, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I fully agree that Alexandros has made many useful contributions, but he is not always aware of the impact that his words and deeds have on the people around him, and I feel this is serious limitation for an admin. -- Viajero 00:43, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He is clearly not ripe for adminship, for reasons already expressed by various people on his previous four or five applications. Giving in to his obsession would set a bad precedent, sending the message "if you're rejected here, just apply again in a few days, and repeat until people get tired of it and support you". --Wik 00:44, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • No, if you get rejected, you sit and wait for someone to nominate. This is a nomination - he did not bring it about. You are making a false portrayal of the situation. --Jiang | Talk
      • When he was previously rejected, he did not sit and wait - he applied again some days later. He should wait some months and if he can pass that time without applying again nor otherwise misbehaving then I don't think anyone would oppose him. But now it's too early to risk it. --Wik 05:21, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
  • Support. Alexandros showed poor judgment initially but has steadily improved. He has shown himself to be a committed, capable wikipedian. There are wikipedians less suited to being a sysop who have been given the role. I don't imagine for one minute that he will abuse his position. I believe he deserves his chance to prove just how good he would be in the role. I believe he would be excellent in the role. FearÉIREANN 00:48, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Regarding less-suited Wikipedians: and we have to deal with their misdeeds regularly since adminship is virtually never removed from sysops who abuse their status. I regard that as a separate issue, not a reason to add more trouble. Daniel Quinlan 01:25, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Alexandros/aplank is generally a loose cannon, removed criticism of his own bot from vandalism in progress then, when criticized on IRC, joked that said bot was emotionally distressed and asked him to do so. He seems to feel that he knows the one way the project should work, and is not willing to listen to criticism or regard himself as part of a team, necesary in a sysop. Also, this is something like his seventh or eighth nomination/request for adminship since I joined - I tend to doubt that anyone who applies that often is really planning to work for the common good. -- Pakaran 00:45, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • You can't treat nominations and requests as the same thing. This is a nomination. He did not explicitly ask Dori to nominate him. --Jiang | Talk 05:03, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • Oppose. Some reasons as before, and before, and before, and before. silsor 04:41, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • Your previous two reasons for opposing were "you are unquestionably helpful as a whole, but slow down. The word that comes to mind is "obsessive"." and "It's been less than four days since you withdrew your last request, in which I voted against." This is a nomination so your reasons don't apply anymore. --Jiang | Talk
      • Sure they do. How does the fact he was nominated make him less obsessive? His last request was just about 10 days ago, and he probably just held out that long because Jiang promised to nominate him. --Wik 05:21, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
      • Like Wik said. I oppose because he seems to want adminship for the wrong reasons. silsor 05:40, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
  • Support. He has contributed considerably to Misplaced Pages, and has grown into the role, after making some mistakes at the outset. That is commendable. I vote yes. Danny 05:18, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This edit (mentioned before) is barely a month old. --snoyes 05:42, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support. I wonder if people writing the above comments know what "obsessive" means. Alexandros wants to help and has helped a lot. He has made mistakes, and who hasn't? On the other hand, non-sysops can behave "more freely" precisely because they (we) have no responsibility whatsoever. I repeat: he has made mistakes, I am not denying it. But he has done quite a lot of good Pfortuny 13:17, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Sounds like you're talking about me. Obsession means "an unhealthy and compulsive preoccupation with something or someone". On our own page on Obsession, which redirects to OCD, obsession is defined as "ideas that the person cannot stop thinking about". On the strength of my own observations and interactions with Alexandros on WP and IRC I maintain that Alexandros is obsessed with adminship. If you want to question me further do it on my talk page. silsor 19:49, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
  • I strongly support Alexandros becoming an administrator. Although he may have made some mistakes in the past (which I never encountered), well I challenge any long-term Misplaced Pages user to say they haven't made a serious judgment error or had a conflict with other users. We've all been there, and it feels pretty awful when it happens. You learn from it, you use this learning experience to help you to strive for new levels of achievement. I have only ever see him edit "with dignity and valour". He has boundless enthusiasm for Misplaced Pages (more than me), which can only be a good thing for the project as a whole. Finally, Alexandros seems like a genuinely nice guy. Seems like a pretty worthy candidate to me. - Mark Ryan 14:11, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support. People are entitled to make mistakes, especially when they try to improve. Similar example is Adam Carr, although he does not share this persistence in becoming a sysop. Muriel Victoria 14:53, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Alexandros refuses to take responsibility for his actions. His recent behaviour with running Wikibot has shown he can not be trusted. The bot was listed on Vandalism in progress, and Alexandros made no response to the many concerns listed there. Instead, he chose to remove the listing from the page . There were also complaints on the mailing list, which again went unanswered. Alexandros continues to run the bot without even acknowledging the problems. I fear he would do the same with sysop actions – making poor judgements in implementing bans, carrying out deletions etc without acknowledging any responsibility for these. A sysop needs to be accountable for their actions, and I don't feel Alexandros would be. Angela. 15:45, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I usually wouldn't respond to a comment on my nomination for adminship, but I addressed the bot issue and fixed the bot. I removed wikibot from vip *after* it was agreed that the issue was resolved. Angela seems to be confused about this, but she won't listen to me when I explain what happened. Alexandros 16:05, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't think the issues surrounding the bot are resolved and you still have not even commented on posts such as this one. Angela. 16:18, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
To expand upon what Angela has said above: as everyone knows, being an admin means, in the most concrete terms, being able to delete files, block anon users, and protect pages. All of these actions depend judgement calls, and as such, are subject to debate. Because what we are dealing with is not black or white, all of us make errors of judgement, even admins who have been here for more than several years. In view of this, it is absolutely critical that an admin takes responsibility for his or her errors.
In my interactions with Alexandros (then Aplank) over the ever-contentious Mother Teresa article, I found it an immensely difficult task to convince him to simply acknowledge his actions, let alone acknowledge that he may have acted wrongly. He repeatedly tried to minimize the three edit wars in which he had been involved, dismissing them as a single edit conflict. I have also found his obsessive, single-minded pursuit of adminship, particularly his last self-nomination, has demonstrated a singular lack of maturity, restraint, and good judgement, precisely the qualities one looks for in a potential sysop.
By contrast, I noticed another very new sysop, just ordained a couple of days ago, made a couple of minor slip-ups. When they were pointed out, he immediately acknowledged that he may have made an error and took responsibility for his actions. I am not at all confident that Alexandros is cut from the same material. To reiterate, the point is not whether he makes errors but how he handles them.-- Viajero 19:15, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Bcorr

Brian has been with us for 4 months and did 811 edits. He started some nice article: User:Bcorr/new articles. He doesn't sound bitchy or hateful, so he probably will make a good admin who is not bitchy or hateful. And he, even though an non-admin, sometimes participates in the Mailing List. That's more involved than admins like me! (Damn my small-sized hotmail. I can only read the mailing list, not reply. :-D --Menchi (Talk)â 07:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • Support. Brian has made excellent contributions and spent a lot of time mediating the 2002 Gujarat violence page. He will make a great sysop. Angela. 07:24, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support. --Jiang | Talk 07:25, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Yes! Support. Was thinking of nominating him myself :) Dysprosia 07:25, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Excellent idea. Yes. -- Viajero 11:14, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • oui Anthère
  • Support. Why do I always assume the regulars already are sysops..? Κσυπ Cyp   16:56, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:01, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Oppose... no, just kidding. Support. -- Cyan 20:04, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support. BCorr would make a great admin. - Hephaestos 21:28, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support, thought he was one already! --Uncle Ed 21:41, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support, I agree. Daniel Quinlan 22:05, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Oppose! I discriminate against those named Brian! *gets flamed by developer Brion* err... Support! - ugen64 02:43, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
  • I support, Bcorr is very nice to newbies. Alexandros 00:23, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Definitely. I thought he was already an admin, seeing the way he mediated (very successfully) 2002 Gujarat violence chance 14:15, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you all. I'm honored to be nominated and I accept. I've felt welcomed and encouraged from the beginning of my time being active on the Misplaced Pages, and I appreciate all of you who've taken the time to ask and answer questions, offer guidance, and correct me when I've made an error. I'll do my level best to follow my own advice and to be helpful and friendly. And thank you for the kind words. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:30, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Andres

I would like to nominate Andres for adminship. Andres is a very intelligent and level-headed contributor that researches articles very thoroughly. (He has been around since April of this year I think, has about 1000 total edits, 850 non-minor, 550 non-minor and non-Misplaced Pages/User/Talk related for those who care :) Dori | Talk 03:49, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

  • Thank you for nominating me. I don't oppose adminship though I don't need the sysop status. I spend most of the time on the Estonian Misplaced Pages and here I edit only articles I am interested in because of their content. Andres 04:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Support. I especially like his edit summaries. silsor 04:10, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Support. --Wik 04:13, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Support if he thinks he'll use it. If not, I oppose. I don't think it's necessarily good to have inactive sysops. (He is definitely active enough as an editor and has sufficient experience for me to support otherwise.) Daniel Quinlan 04:39, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
    • I would not be an active sysop. I would use my adminship very rarely, if at all. Andres 04:46, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't think inactivity as a sysop should be an issue. If Andres only uses his extra buttons to delete a nonsense page once in a blue moon that's OK (or even if he doesn't). I use mine rarely myself, and don't see that as a problem at all. -- sannse 08:51, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I certainly hope there isn't a required page deletion quota for all sysops... Damn, forgot to block someone today, I'll probably get my Misplaced Pages salary for today halved... Κσυπ Cyp   16:56, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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.

The Cunctator

The discussion previously listed here is still active as of 4th December 2003 11am UTC. However I have moved it to Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/The Cunctator due to the length of this page and the fact the discussion had drifted away from the primary purpose of this page, which is about granting people sysopship. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:51, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Andre Engels

Although I still stand behind this project, I also notice lately that me and the 'people in power' have clearly different ideas about what an encyclopedia is, or at least what a good encyclopedia is. Rather than continuing to clash with them, I prefer to leave this place for WikipediaNL.

I wish you luck, and regret that I do not feel able to cooperate on this wonderful project further. Andre Engels 08:40, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A matter of regret. Good luck Andre. Martin 00:30, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Request withdrawn. Large part of the reasons still stand, but above it was said that inactive sysops are not unwelcome, and there are some things that need sysop-powers that I still want to do (especially updating Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation pages with links to see what I can get Robbot to work on). Andre Engels 08:59, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)