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 Sverdrup (talk | contribs) at 17:25, 4 April 2004 (=Sverdrup; = Ironically, I did just that. (yes, I can only do crappy photos) ~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:25, 4 April 2004 by Sverdrup (talk | contribs) (=Sverdrup; = Ironically, I did just that. (yes, I can only do crappy photos) ~~~~)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Communitypage

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

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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators for what this entails and for a list of current admins. See Misplaced Pages: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 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 a variety of articles without often getting into conflicts with other users.

Nomination. Users can nominate other users for administrator. If you want to nominate another user, please notify them by leaving a message on their talk page in advance, as a courtesy. If the user wishes not to be nominated, please abide by that decision. Along with the nomination, please give some reasons as to why you think this editor would make a good administrator.
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). Other users 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. Please also give some reasons as to why you think you would make a good administrator.
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. This requirement has been added to prevent abuses of the system.

After at least 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 Misplaced Pages:Recently created admins and Misplaced Pages:Recently created bureaucrats. If there is uncertaintly, in the mind of even one bureaucrat, at least one bureaucrat should suggest an extension, so that it is clear that it is the community decision which is being implemented.

Nominations for adminship

Note: Nominations have to be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, please also leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.

Please place new nominations at the top

User:Exploding Boy (3/0/1) ends 04:37, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contributor has been here since early January and has made many substantial contributions. He is already keeping a keen eye out for vandalism and other violations of Misplaced Pages policy. I think he'd make a great admin. Moncrief 04:39, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

(awaing acceptance of nomination)

Support

  1. Support. In my experience with Exploding boy, he has not only shown himself to be a good contributor but quite reasonable as well. →Raul654 04:58, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • PS - I still think that if you looked up unintional humor in a dictionary, you'd find this edit of his
  2. NEWCOMER RIGHTS! - Woodrow. 05:04, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Meelar 05:05, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. I like Exploding Boy (love his name), but I think he needs to be here for a while more. RickK | Talk 04:43, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:Sj (22/0/2) ends 17:32, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Excellent contributor, coolheaded, and active. Would be a valuable addition as a sysop. Alex S 17:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Information only -- Sj has 2880+ edits since mid-January. Jwrosenzweig 17:45, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, Alex; it would be an honor. +sj+ 23:13, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)

Support

  1. Alex S, of course
  2. Sj would be a good choice, I believe. And villainous is hard to spell. ;-) Jwrosenzweig 17:45, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Warofdreams 17:50, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Danny 18:10, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. 172 18:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Excellent choice. I had no idea that Sj wasn't an admin already. 172 18:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. GrazingshipIV 19:17, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Most definitely. LUDRAMAN | T 20:10, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. --Jiang 20:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Hephaestos|§ 20:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Cecropia 20:40, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. Quinwound 21:07, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  12. He wasn't one already? Meelar 21:24, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  13. Decumanus | Talk 21:40, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  14. Obviously. Pfortuny 21:43, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  15. Support. RADICALBENDER★ 21:59, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  16. Texture 23:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  17. Sarge Baldy 23:43, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  18. jengod 00:38, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
  19. — Jor (Talk) 10:56, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  20. Ertz 22:34, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  21. Emphatically. (I truly thought he already was one!) Hadal 07:51, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  22. Angela
  23. Zvi 10:16, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Note: Zvi's only edits are to this page. Angela. 10:39, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
  24. Stewart Adcock 01:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Can't spell villainous right. --Wik 17:40, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Dori | Talk 17:44, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC) A bit too early, seems to be a Wikipediholic though :)



Cecropia (27/7/0) 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
    Since Get-back-world-respect asked me today on my talk page what I thought about Cecropia's nomination, I thought I'd emphasize my support here--since I guess a simple vote isn't enough of an indication for GBWR. I have not had a lot of interaction with C. -- mostly on the Kerry page, and while C and I have disagreed, he was never difficult to work with (in fact rather pleasant actually) and we have always been able to reach a reasonable compromise. Bkonrad | Talk 14:54, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    Ah, GBWR fights the battle on many fronts! ;-) Cecropia 15:09, 1 Apr 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)
  14. Jiang 22:48, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  15. Ruhrjung 23:32, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) — rather strong support, actually. I've spent some hours to read through Talk:Terrorism/Draft, Talk:George W. Bush, the actual articles, and some more contributions and am truly impressed by the wit and civility.
  16. Ryan_Cable 04:08, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
  17. Mdchachi 15:43, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Cecropia's record speaks for itself. I completely agree with RadicalBender. In the (highly POV) Bush article, Cecropia tried to build consensus and make it NPOV or present balancing views.
  18. Hephaestos|§ 20:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  19. Quinwound 21:14, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  20. jengod 00:41, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
  21. As much as I hate to agree with the two people who appear to be my archenemies, support. A useful editor, and time here is not an issue (Can the UDHR be applied here?). - Woodrow 20:26, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  22. Angela
  23. Remarkably level-headed and open. As with Dec, 'the perfect temperament' to be an admin. +sj+
  24. Fennec 16:59, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  25. David Newton 19:31, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  26. Maximus Rex 03:46, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  27. Catherine 04:21, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • oh yes, he is my master and fully deserves admiralship Mijnheer 17:41, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Sockpuppet. That was his first edit. →Raul654 17:53, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
      • Admiralship? I'd be willing to start as midshipman. Cecropia 18:43, 2 Apr 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)
  6. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 21:39, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Moncrief 05:55, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  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)

Self nominations for adminship

Please add new requests to the top


Sverdrup; (27/0/0) 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  14. Tuf-Kat 00:27, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Support Stewart Adcock 00:27, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  16. GrazingshipIV 00:58, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Michael Snow 01:02, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  18. Decumanus | Talk 03:39, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  19. 100% support. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 17:47, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
  20. Have no problem supporting -- Graham  :) | Talk 21:25, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  21. Total support. I'm only sorry that you had to nominate yourself - one of us should have done it. Moncrief 03:30, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Ryan_Cable 04:08, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
  23. Hephaestos|§ 20:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  24. Pakaran. 21:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  25. Strange that he wasn't one already. Pfortuny 21:45, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  26. Danny 02:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  27. Hadal 07:51, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

  1. Oh, look...another hippie! --Eric Cartman
    • Like, dude the 60's are back! Can ya dig it? =) --Merovingian ↕ Talk 17:47, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Damn commie pinkos... this site is chocked full of 'em. →Raul654 14:55, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

AdamRetchless; (6/4/0), 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 Misplaced Pages 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?

Clarification: I asked about my co-authors only because they are the most familiar with my style of interaction on Misplaced Pages. I understand that sysop powers such as protecting should be used to keep Misplaced Pages working, not make an article "right". AdamRetchless 21:17, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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)
  4. Support. Meelar 01:03, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. Adam seems to know what he's doing; the fact that he's been with the project for 1-2 years is a plus--Plato 23:41, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. Moncrief 09:41, Apr 2, 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)
    • Err... there is a "rollback" button for admins that facilitates their reverting duties. ugen64 23:47, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  3. I agree with moink and have issues with any request for adminship directed solely at article you edit on. (Else, why the reference to "co-authors" that you are seeking admin status?) - Texture 15:20, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Not enough edits -- Graham  :) | Talk 21:25, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. From his edits, he seems like a solid and cautious contributor that can be trusted not to abuse his power. He also seems a little too new. I'd prefer to wait for a renomination in a few weeks before I support. Isomorphic 03:58, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Calmypal (3/9/3);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)
  3. Support. — Jor (Talk) 23:27, 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)
  6. Oppose, due to controversiality reasons indicated below. Fennec 13:45, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Too eccentric and unpredictable, in my opinion, to make a reliable admin at this time. Moncrief
  8. Tends to get into the middle of edit wars. Not to mention the ice cream fiasco, and interesting signatures. Pakaran. 21:31, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Much too green. jengod 00:43, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. I cannot support the adminship of anyone from Pennsauken that styles himself as a king. I have a weird gut feeling I know you IRL. --Hcheney 17:55, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Reading all the comments, I can't support yet, but I see he has worked on a goodly number of useful subjects, so I hope he'll buckle down and that we'll see him here again in a few months and will have earned a better opinion. Cecropia 22:54, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. I am not to sure 6 months seems a little new, i need to look at his contributions--Plato 02:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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)
I believe that Jenna and Laura Bush have finally find their calling! Meelar 04:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I thought of that, but I'd have to divorce and get married at least every four or eight years. Think of the debt! Remember to make your write-in votes for FDR this November, voting U.S. citizens! - Woodrow 22:38, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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)

Yes, but as I've said before, that is over. Admit you fanned the flames of hatred! ADMIT IT! Anyway, the name thing was just some random thought when I was thinking of a new name after Jwrosenzweig mentioned that signing things as "Misplaced Pages" might confuse newbies. Furthermore, I saw no reason not to start adding the footer after I made it. I still say you had no right to remove a comment that wasn't even a personal attack! Cheers, Woodrow 01:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You'll have to prove that it's over by compromising and trying to discuss things in a contructive manner. Do this over the course of a few weeks and we might support you. My argument was that your actions did not have the backing of community consensus, and by ignoring this argument, I don't see you have changed. The footer was removed once, yet you chose to ignore us and readd it. Your comment on that page produced huge horizontal expansion and was obvious trolling. --Jiang
All this, and you continue to come on so negatively. Talk at MediaWiki talk:Uspresidents has died down, and I will reluctantly continue to let it die. That footer was a disputed decision at worst, and I'd like to advise you to judge people for adminship based on whether they can be trusted to use admin powers responsibly. I am able to get into edit wars now, but I recognize other people's right to disagree with my decisions. By that, I mean that I won't protect pages because I think my way's the only way. With all respect perceived by myself to be due, Woodrow 21:57, 30 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