Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions - 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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:22, 3 July 2004 view sourceRaul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 edits →[] (1/10/1) Ends 00:38, 10 July 2004 (UTC)← Previous edit Revision as of 06:24, 3 July 2004 view source El Sandifer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,527 edits →[] (1/10/1) Ends 00:38, 10 July 2004 (UTC): Removed obviously doomed nomination in an attempt to avert increasingly heated discussion.Next edit →
Line 37: Line 37:
''Current time is '''{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}''' (UTC)'' ''Current time is '''{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}''' (UTC)''


=== ] (1/10/1) Ends 00:38, 10 July 2004 (UTC)===
~846 edits since March 6.


It may appear that he would abuse his powers to support the ], and I felt this way myself when he was nominated last month by ]. He actually is less likely than most to misuse them, and he would help counteract those who are quick to click the '''Block this user''' and '''Confirm''' buttons. This is shown by his ability to defend those who are most unpopular with the community and to protect them against ] and unfair extended ]. ]] 00:39, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:I accept, and thank Guanaco for his nomination. ]

'''Support'''
# ]] 00:39, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] Trolling is not a valid reason to oppose sysophood; all such complaints should be negated.
#:Only in ''your'' mind. ] 04:47, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
#:Trolling is the best darn reason I can ''think of'' to oppose sysophood. Get out. All of you just get out. The only people who want you here is you. The "administration" (ha ha) of this site put up with you. I won't. I am sure there are others who won't, either. You want democracy? You've got it. - ]|] 05:19, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#::Amen. ] 06:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''
# A self-admitted former troll - this is a joke, right? ] - that's about all I have to say. (For the record, this page has now been changed to reflect on Plato better. is what it looked like when I posted that link) ] 00:43, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
#:I am not a troll.
#::You just think they're ]? ] 00:59, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
#:::That was moved there from ] because it would have been deleted otherwise. It does not represent anyone's beliefs but JRR Trollkien's. ]] 01:02, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#::It's linked to from Plato's Red Faction page. ] 01:22, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
#:::] is linked to from my user page. So I guess I am a murderer now. ]] 01:53, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#::I think, considering that you just added that, that it's more likely that you're prone to proving points in odd ways. Whereas, in the case of the Red Faction page, context, particularly that offered by the page prior to its sudden and unexpected change to a page about fostering Wikilove, suggests that it is not simply an arbitrary link made to prove a point. ] 01:59, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
#::::He has intentionally associated himself with the worst users on Misplaced Pages. He now has has no right to complain that it is being held against him. ] 01:59, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
#:::] has been there for a long time, and is not there to prove a point. Am I a flag or a PNG image of one that needs to be deleted? ]]
#:::I am incapable of believing you are actually missing my point here. ] 02:50, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
#::::I think Guanaco's repeated unilateral unblocking of hard banned users such as ] and the various User names created by ] says volumes about his agenda. ]'''] 05:57, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
# I think plenty of checks exist for sysop vigilantism without needing to grant sysophood to people who have actively supported some of the worst Misplaced Pages users I can think of. ] 00:49, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
#: Misplaced Pages is not a country club for those who are "tough on crime". We need admins with diverse opinions on how to deal with problem users. ]] 00:59, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#::To reply to an unsupported statement with another unsupported statement, no, we don't. - ]|] 03:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#I think Plato means well enough, but I don't believe him to be mature or sensible enough. I don't trust him. When MNH started a RFC on me Plato signed it because (as he later said on the mailing list) MNH and lir and irismeister all pushed him into doing it. Someone who will cave in to pressure like that is not likely to make a good admin IMO. ] 01:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#:Could you give a link to the mailing list archives showing that post? ]] 03:19, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#::http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-May/012848.html - ]|] 03:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#A frivolous nomination. He was nominated less than a month ago and failed by a huge margin. How often are people able to renominate themselves? - ] 01:21, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#:He hasn't renominated himself.] 01:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#::How often are people able to be renominated, though? - ] 01:33, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#::Last time, the nomination was by ] during disputes involving ]. ] was not actually involved. After that that had been cleared up, it seemed to be a good time for him to be renominated by another user. ]] 01:32, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#:::Although Nick was not involved directly in posting from Editing Saddam Hussein, he has admitted to talking to Lir during the process, encouraging Lir to do things, and generally to being a coconspirator in that incident. It's also worth noting that the Editing Saddam Hussein affair gave every appearance of being linked to the user who was impersonating RickK (The fake RickK voted for Lir's nomination of Plato, and was posting on the ViP for Editing.) ] 01:45, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
#::When did he admit to this? If you have a link or an IRC log, please post it. ]] 02:56, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#:::It was in IRC, about a onth ago, however, as I do not log, I'm unable to provide hard evidence. ] 02:58, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
#::I'll believe you once I see a log. ]] 03:19, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#:::Are you accusing me of lying? ] 03:37, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
#::::Posting large sections of logs is explicetely against the rules. ] 03:39, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
#:::::Which is neither here nor there, since I don't have the logs in question. I'm aware that this makes it a situation of my word against Plato's. Or, actually, since he hasn't responded one way or another, of my word against nothing at all. I'm willing to allow people to believe what they will - I hardly see how I have any option. (After all, it's not as though a log would be proof - they're easily enough faked. Those inclined not to believe me, I suspect, cannot be persuaded) ] 03:52, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
# --] 01:33, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 01:39, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
# ]|] 02:46, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
# ] 05:17, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#Utter nonsense. Plato is not a '''''former''''' troll, he is a repeated, recurring, continuing troll. And this nomination just reveals Adam/Lir for what he is -- a troll himself. ]'''] 05:50, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
# Oppose. I would, however, support a permanent ban of both nominator and nominee. Frankly, I consider it long overdue. ] 06:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
#:Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I disagreed with Guanaco's unblockings as much as anyone else, but I think he's a good contributor and that's a very unfair accusation to make. ] 06:22, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

'''Neutral'''
# After researching this user, I withdraw my neutral status and change to oppose (see above) <strike>For now, I remain neutral (and skeptical). Some questions for Plato; A) What are your Misplaced Pages tendencies? Do you consider yourself to be a deletionist or an inclusionist? An eventualist or an immediatist? B) What is your alternative philosophy for dealing with trolls, vandals, and problem users? Under what circumstances '''would''' you block a user? C) Can you say with complete honesty that you can perform sysop duties without alienating users? ] 01:12, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)</strike>

'''Comments'''


===] (9/1/0) Ends 00:42, 2004 Jul 9 === ===] (9/1/0) Ends 00:42, 2004 Jul 9 ===

Revision as of 06:24, 3 July 2004

Shortcut
  • ]
WP:RFA does not stand for Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration.

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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators for what this entails and see Misplaced Pages:List of administrators for a list of current admins. See Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats for a list of users entrusted to grant sysop rights.

Voting for nominations is for a period of 7 calendar days, unless extended, measured from the time of nomination. Current time is 01:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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.

While achieving administrator status is rightly considered a recognition by the Misplaced Pages community, those being proposed should ideally desire to actively use their additional powers to help the community with the often tedious but very necessary chores that require their extra access. Though administrators speak with no special authority when interacting with other editors, those seeking the position should be aware that other editors, especially new ones, are likely to expect them to represent the best of Misplaced Pages and be courteous and helpful and willing to point them in the direction of information they seek. While there is no harm to having an inactive administrator, Misplaced Pages administrators should be willing to use their extra powers when they can to keep Misplaced Pages up-to-date.

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 Misplaced Pages policies and procedures. The quality and quantity of a nominee's work here is also a factor. Many Wikipedians take into account the number of edits a candidate has made, as a rough indication of how active the candidate has been. There are no hard guidelines on this, but most users seem to expect between 500 and 1000 edits before they will seriously consider a nomination.

Nominations which are obviously unqualified (those with fewer than 100 edits, for example) may be removed before the voting is complete. Past votes shows that the great majority of Wikipedians will not support such nominations, so they have no chance of success. Nominations may also be removed early if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship.

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, you should probably 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 Misplaced Pages:Recently created admins and Misplaced Pages:Recently created bureaucrats. If there is uncertainty, 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.

Current time is 01:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


User:Markalexander100 (9/1/0) Ends 00:42, 2004 Jul 9

An excellent contributor. ~2100 edits as of this comment and has been around since February.

Thanks, I'd be happy to accept. Markalexander100 07:58, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. 172 07:42, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Merovingian✍Talk 07:55, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
  3. David Cannon 11:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) An excellent contributor. It would be great to have Markalexander on board.
  4. JCarriker 12:07, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support --H. CHENEY 13:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. Lst27 17:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. Neutrality 20:04, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  8. Jiang 01:57, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) of course
  9. I've seen some lovely, patient work. And the cabal needs more blonds. +sj+ 02:08, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. No offense meant toward Mark. But IMHO, I feel he still needs more experience in our community. Kingturtle 17:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

Comments: A few standard questions for admin candidates, if you care to respond:

  1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
  2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Misplaced Pages up to date?
  3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
Thanks and good luck. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User has 2111 edits as of this comment and has been around since February 17. -- Grunt (talk) 14:58, 2004 Jul 2 (UTC)

Standard questions - can you give us an example of any edit wars you have been involved in and how you acted during them, or ways you have "been involved in the community", etc etc? →Raul654 17:34, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

User:Cutler (6/1/0) ends 20:37, 8 July 2004

A very smart, polite user who has made many fantastic contribs (~1140) about the scientific community, scientists, etc. Here since at least December 30, 2003.

Honoured and flattered to be nominated. Not something I'd especially sought but pleased to accept and be part of this great project. Cutler 16:01, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Merovingian✍Talk 12:39, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support --H. CHENEY 15:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:54, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. A shoo-in. Neutrality 16:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Strongly support. David Cannon 22:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. 6 months and 1140 edits is a lot of experience. Support. --Lst27 17:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. IMHO, not yet enough experience here. Kingturtle 17:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

User actually has exactly 1140 edits as of this posting (). -- Grunt (talk) 14:01, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)

A few standard questions for admin candidates, if you care to respond:

  1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
  2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Misplaced Pages up to date?
  3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
Thanks and good luck. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:17, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Blankfaze (23/2/0) 14:00, 6 July 2004 (2004)

Tags stuff for speedy deletion, patrols Recent Changes, performs other fun administrivia. Chats onna IRC channel. Second-spiffiest user page I've ever seen (next to User:Angela's). Has a sense of humor humour. Claims to have been here since 3 April with 2600-2800 edits. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 14:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Er, well, I was surprised by Fennec's nomination, but... pleasantly, I suppose. Thanks, and I accept your nomination for the Presidency of the United States of America! blankfaze | •• | •• 14:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I've never made a single biased or POV edit, IMO. I've never touched an article with a religious topic. I try to be NPOV at all times. And I always, always abide by consensuses here on WP, even if I don't agree with them. blankfaze | •• | •• 17:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 14:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Neutrality 14:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. Keep. Er, wait… —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 14:44, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
  4. SkArcher 15:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. Mike H 16:41, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Sometimes a fish is just a fish. In any case, we have many admins with strong personal views about both politics and religion. The important thing is that they respect the NPOV policy and not use their position to promote their viewpoint or suppress opposing views. I don't believe Blankfaze will do this, so I support. --Michael Snow 16:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. If we asked our admins not to have opinions--or even not to make them clear--I can think of dozens who wouldn't be admins any more. Blankfaze has always behaved well in his interactions with me, and would make a good admin. ] 18:58, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. Fredrik | talk 21:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. David Gerard 23:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) - despite the fish (formerly Danzig).
  10. Good nomination - Tεxτurε 23:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  11. older≠wiser 23:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  12. Merovingian✍Talk 05:35, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:39, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  14. Lst27 18:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  15. H. CHENEY 19:22, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  16. Hope you like this support ;-P ] 19:30, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  17. Michael Warren | Talk 22:53, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  18. Support Secretlondon 23:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  19. Woggly 11:54, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  20. Seth Ilys 04:55, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  21. Chris 73 | Talk 04:59, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  22. Danny 05:05, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  23. 172 07:31, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Not yet enough experience here yet for me to get a full picture of how said user reacts in various situations. Kingturtle 17:28, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Blank is a good contributor, but he's been here less than three months - this is premature. I think I'll support if he is nominated later. →Raul654 00:53, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments:

  • Sadly, I Oppose. Blankfaze's apparent hostility to Christianity and ridicule of a Christian symbol (the Fish) on his user page suggest a current lack of maturity in dealings with the diverse community Misplaced Pages represents. Since I am bound to be asked, I am unchurched personally, and consider myself a freethinker. If I were forced to subscribe to the tenets of a faith, I would probably have to look toward Bahai in that it attempts to respect the validity of all religions, races and peoples. Cecropia | Talk 15:32, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Whoa, no offense, Cecropia, but you're waaaaaaaaaaay wrong here. First of all, I have no hostility towards Christianity at all. I think religion is a great thing for a great many people. I DO have a problem with it playing such a prominent role in my nation's highest office, because not everyone in my country is a Christian. That is all you can read into that. I have no beef with Christianity. Second of all, the fish has NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING to do with Christianity. At all. It's the logo/mascot/symbol for my band The Milky Ways. The description text clearly says "blankfaze's avatar" ... His name is Fishy and it's just a dead stick-figure fish. It has NOTHING to do with Christianity. So, I respect your vote to oppose, but I want you to know that you're off-base on that. blankfaze | •• | •• 15:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Blankfaze, you insensitive clod!!! I'm going to beat you up for that "warmongering tyrant" bit! <boof! pow!>
        However, I fail to see how this reflects on his suitability for adminship. Perhaps if you'd care to point out him adding POV to an article of some sort, Cecropia, you'd have a case... - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 15:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • A fair enough explanation. Objection withdrawn, though I think you'll now have to deal with fish supporters. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Thank you, and I apologise for getting so heated, but I take accusations like that rather to heart. Ikes! Fish supporters! I forgot all about them!!! blankfaze | •• | •• 16:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • THAT IS A GROSS NATIONAL INSULT AGAINST FISH (formerly Danzig) - David Gerard 23:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • (previous on opposing) I have to confess i am a bit distressed by the amounts of bolds and screaming used to respond to a perfectly well balanced comment on an opposing vote. Muriel G 16:02, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I understand. Ordinarily, this would not be the case, but his comment was so unbalanced and just... off-base... that it really offended me. I pride myself on my tolerance and acceptance, and for someone to accuse me of being some sort of anti-Christian bigot... just... really offends me. blankfaze | •• | •• 16:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • You shouldnt be offended. Anyway, i am removing this to comments, because i have really nothing against you personally. Muriel G 16:09, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I shouldn't be offended if someone accuses me of being intolerant? Well, I'm sorry, but I am. blankfaze | •• | •• 16:14, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I think this was intended as emphasis rather than screaming and is quite reasonable given the accusations… —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 16:10, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
  • I too would have been offended if someone made assumptions based on a picture of a fish. However think on this - It is quite possible that Cecropia was joking! theresa knott 16:20, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Jokes are usually funny, though, innit? Mike H 14:56, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • He really does strive for excellence in whatever he does, and has helped me, on multiple occasions, in cleaning up not only articles devoted to our hometown, but to more diverse exploits as well. His user page is evidence of that. Mike H 16:41, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

User:Rmhermen (26/0/0) 22:55, 5 July 2004 (UTC)

Rmhermen has been here since sometime in 2002 and made nearly 10,000 edits under this account. I've never seen Rmhermen get into any trouble and was very suprised to find out that Rmhermen is still not an admin. (So suprised I had to ask before nominating.) Someone who's acquired so many edits and been around so long certainly deserves it. --Jiang 22:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I accept. Actually I've been here since the first half of 2001 -blame those early software upgrades which lost some of the edit histories. And I must admit there have been a few conflicts in that time. I remember HJ in particular. I promise I won't abuse any power. In fact you may have to remind me what it is. Everything moves so fast these days... nobody remembers back when... In the old days we ... Rmhermen 23:18, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Jiang 22:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Dori | Talk 23:03, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Wow. I know this is a cliche here on RfA, but I really, really thought you were already an admin. REALLY! blankfaze | •• | ••­ 23:26, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. What Blankfaze said. older≠wiser 23:47, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. An excellent choice I'd have nominated long ago if I'd thought to check. Jwrosenzweig 23:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. --"DICK" CHENEY 00:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. An excellent nomminee. Neutrality 01:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. Certainly. Everyking 02:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  10. David Cannon 04:01, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) Without reservation.
  11. Merovingian✍Talk 04:25, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  12. I didn't know Rmhermen had been around for quite this long, but even if I was only considering what I've seen of Rmhermen over the past few months, it's quite enough for me to support. --Michael Snow 16:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  13. Tεxτurε 23:20, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  14. Warofdreams 17:58, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  15. Lst27 18:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  16. BCorr|Брайен 19:14, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  17. Secretlondon 02:09, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  18. Woggly 12:07, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  19. David Gerard 13:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  20. Smerdis of Tlön 18:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  21. Por supuesto. Isomorphic 02:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  22. Seth Ilys 04:58, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  23. Danny 05:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  24. 172 07:31, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  25. Kingturtle 17:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  26. Neutrality 20:05, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments


Self nominations for adminship

Self-nominators, please review the qualifications above. Many editors feel that self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure," have an account name that is many months old and have many hundreds of edits. This is not to say that self-nominators are necessarily any less qualified than "sponsored" nominations; however, many editors use their knowledge of the nominator as a "jumping off" point for considering nominees, and it is human nature to be more skeptical of those asking for a position than those being proposed by others. If you self-nominate, a good solid background is therefore very important.

User:Falcon Kirtaran (0/5/2) ends 04:30, 9 July 2004

Ordinarily I would not nominate myself for adminship, however without the ability to remove a number of pages I have created, my work on the Dewey Decimal classification will remain a huge mess and probably become even more so. Falcon 04:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note: User has edited at Misplaced Pages since mid-March; currently has ~440 edits. Jwrosenzweig 04:43, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. Will support after 750+ edits. Sorry. In the meantime, take Chris 73's suggestion, or if something needs to be deleted right away, put {{delete}} at the top of the page. --Merovingian✍Talk 05:01, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Merovinginan; Falcon has simply not been a contributor long enough for me to support a self-nomination. As the section heading states, self-nominators should exceed the normal nomination standards by a goodly amount. Also, I am concerned by a claim on this user's talk page that he is not "at all tolerant of pro-corporate POVs, or even a hint thereof." I would find it unsettling to have a sysop who claims to have such an extreme bias. -- Slowking Man 05:12, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
    I'm not supporting Falcon, because of the lack of edits, however I find it morally wrong that people are judging potential admins based on what they say on their user pages. People should be judged by their behaviour, not by their opinions. IMO we should have a number of admins with a diverse range of opinions. The point of a user page is that you can write your own thoughts, opinions and biases. It is the one place where you are free to be POV, to say whatever you please. I don't want non admins frightened to express themselves on their user pages just in case it is used against them at a later date when they are up for adminship. (Sorry to have a go at you Slowking Man, It's nothing personal) theresa knott 15:08, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    I can't quite agree with you Theresa, especially when you say "morally wrong." NPOV is supposed to be "absolute and non-negotiable". Now of course most everyone on Misplaced Pages has a POV, and that is OK, but you are supposed to write, edit and perform duties entrusted to you in a NPOV fashion. Declaring a specific intolerence so strongly for someone seeking adminship requires, at the least, an explanation. And it seems natural to me to go a person's user page to figure out if they are suited to admin duties. This is not a free-speech issue, it's an attitude issue. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    We are talking about user space not article space here. Of course articles should be NPOV and if anyone pushed a POV in articles I would certainly oppose making them an admin.But this is different. I don't think people should be made to "explain" their opinions before they can be made an admin. Admins must behave well. That's how they should be judged. theresa knott 15:45, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Please, Theresa, this makes no sense. I'm not asking him to explain his honestly held opinions, I want to know how his declared bias would affect his duties. "Not al all tolerant" is a pretty strong phrase. If he had said he is not "at all tolerant of anti-Nazi POVs" would you say "hey, it's his user space--it's immoral to question it"? -- Cecropia | Talk 15:51, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Wooah! don't stray so close to Godwin's Law! It's not the questioning that bothers me. It's the questioning in this section(oppose). What if he'd said "I'm not at all tolerant of POV"? Or "I'm not at all tolerant of loud rock music". theresa knott 16:26, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    "Not at all tolerent of POV" would be a plus--he'd be expressing acceptance of a core Misplaced Pages principle. Why not consider it? "Loud rock music" describes a personal taste. I doubt he would rampage through the non-existent Loud rock music article. But "anti-corporate," something which could cover many articles, especially when combined with "not at all tolerant" and the Misplaced Pages buzzword "POV" rings a bell. Why should we not conisder it? -- Cecropia | Talk 16:34, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    anti corporate does cover many articles. Has the user rampaged through them so far? theresa knott 17:00, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Let's get down to brass tacks, Theresa. I did not post the original complaint about "intolerant of anti-corporate" and I'm not sure whether I would consider it important or not if his user history suggests no problems. I'm arguing with your specification that we can't use what a potential admin says on hir userpage in our considerations, and that this is "morally wrong" no less. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:06, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    If it's the phrase "morally wrong" that you are worried about I'm happy to withdraw it.Let me restate my case to make my position clear. I do not believe it right to oppose someones adminship based on their views. Especially when those views are expressed on their own talk page.I don't think people should have to defend their views in order to become admins. The point about adminship is it is a position of power. We have to trust admins not to abuse their powers. The only sensible way IMO to judge whether someone is trustworthy or not is to look at their behaviour. Having said that, I don't really have a problem with people asking questions. But questions, IMO should be on the user talk page, or in the comment section of this page, they should not be in the oppose section. theresa knott 00:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't believe in extensive argumentation here (as we're doing with this back-and-forth) to the point of distraction, but we're not conveying an honorific, we're approving of people with responsibility on Misplaced Pages, and I think the transparency of discussion here is important. Cecropia | Talk 04:35, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Falcon, I'd personally suggest you set out how you would go about restructuring these pages in your user page somewhere, or in a suitable article's talk page. Then hopefully a current admin can perform the changes for you (if they think they can be done without going to VfD). Later, when you've more experience like the others are discussing you can (be nominated|nominate yourself) for adminship. We'd be setting a dangerous precedent otherwise. EddEdmondson 16:41, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. Not yet enough experience here. Keep working and keep participating :) Try again this autumn. Also, if you need help deleting articles, just tell me what you need done. Kingturtle 17:20, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. David Cannon 11:31, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) Falcon, please keep on doing what you're doing. The Dewey Decimal System classification has the potential to be a very valuable resource, and I'd hate to discourage you. It's only fair to all Wikipedians, however, to hold to uniform promotion rules. Those who vote "NO" are not saying "Never"; most often, they are saying "Yes, but not now." All of us need time to see and judge the quality of an editor's work, and applying the rules evenly to everyone is important. Come back in a couple of months, Falcon, and you'll be in with an excellent chance. I, for one, will support your nomination in a couple of months if you just keep up with what you're doing.
  2. Sorry, Falcon, but you have not made that many edits. I will support you after you make 600 edits. But you are doing great, and keep up the good work! :-) --Lst27 17:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

A few standard questions for admin candidates, if you care to respond:

  1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
  2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Misplaced Pages up to date?
  3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
Thanks and good luck. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

Please add new requests at the top of this section (and again, please update the headers when voting)

Support:

Oppose:

Comments:

Other requests

Possible misuses of administrator powers