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 172 (talk | contribs) at 01:48, 24 February 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:48, 24 February 2004 by 172 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Communitypage 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.

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. 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 Misplaced Pages:Recently created admins.

Nominations for adminship

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

Please place new nominations at the top

Tillwe

Nearly 2000 edits from October 2002. Good entries on European politics and Green issues. -- Kaihsu 20:21, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

  • Support. According to the best of my knowledge and belief, Tillwe will be a useful and good admin. Optim 20:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Thought he/she already was an admin! --Delirium 20:40, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree with Delirium...when I saw "support tillwe" at RC, I thought tillwe was asking to be made bureaucrat! :-) Jwrosenzweig 20:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely support. Kosebamse 20:51, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Sure, he sounds responsible and probably won't go loco like so many others have. --Menchi 21:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Michael Snow 22:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support 172 23:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 7 support, 0 oppose. Ends 20:21, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Hadal

Hadal has been here since December, 2003 and has about 1,900 contributions. He has made numerous good contributions and has handled himself well with regard to dealing with vandalism and other problems and issues. I think he would make a good admin. Maximus Rex 05:49, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Count me as neutral. I do think Hadal is a good choice for adminship, but I'm worried about the fact he's been here less than three months. Angela. 13:57, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The time period is shortish, but hard to imagine that I would think differently two months for now. Stan 17:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support glady. He's very attentive and responsive. This gemmologist will make a friendly admin. --Menchi 09:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


BL

BL is a calm, reasonable user (since 2002) diligently working on a contentious set of articles. 172 09:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Wow. It's extremely flattering to be nominated admin. Thanks for the wikilove hugs all around. Yeah I do still want to become a sysop. But I've long since realised that I'm not one to win any popularity contents. I won't let that, or the baseless accusations made agaisnt me above (that wont be dignified with a response), bother me or effect my enjoyment of Misplaced Pages. BL 22:38, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Support votes:

  1. Support (implicit). BTW, why wasn't I included in the vote tally until now? It was my nomination! 172
  2. Support. Uncle Ed 14:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. Viajero 14:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. Anyone who can stay calm while working on the most inflammatory articles in Misplaced Pages deserves to be a sysop. --No-One Jones 17:45, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. Stewart Adcock 00:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. Down with the cabal! Lirath Q. Pynnor
  7. Tough call. I don't think a persons opinions should be held against him, like they were the last time round, so I would lean towards supporting, but count me as noncommittal for the time being. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 16:53, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC) After consideration, I am wholly unconvinced by the arguments presented against his gaining adminship. Mark me as a support. It would be a boon to have him promoted. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 22:21, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. Based on the opposition BL received the last time he was on this page, I'd like to know whether his reasons for wanting to be a sysop have changed before I vote. See also . Angela. 16:01, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
  2. (removing my response to Angela in light of BL's newer comments)


Oppose votes:

  1. Oppose. Maximus Rex 21:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Angela doesn't trust BL, so i don't trust BL. Alexandros 22:13, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose for now. I think recruiting a radical "inclusionist" is a bad idea. He votes "keep" even on trash that could qualify for instant deletion. --Jiang 00:52, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Wants to put the project at risk by promoting wholesale copyright infringement . Perhaps he should fork, as he suggested in the post. --Michael Snow 16:44, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, for same same reasons as Michael Snow. -- Seth Ilys 22:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Hasn't met an article, no matter how ridiculous, that he thinks should be kept. RickK 05:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. He takes WP for a joke. Hahaha. --Menchi 09:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. --Imran 14:54, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 7 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral. Ends 09:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Redwolf

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

Thank you for the nomination Stewart and I graciously accept said nomination. I'll help out with any administrative type tasks when I can (and time permits) but I understand that adminship does not demand any such tasks be carried out on any regular basis. RedWolf 04:46, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (Based on above, haven't verified... somebody please verify) --Hemanshu 17:47, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tuf-Kat
  • I don't know RedWolf, and thus am abstaining -- I do want to ask, though, why Tuf-Kat above doesn't indicate a vote, and why the tally below assumes he supports? I have no agenda in this....I just got confused by it. Thanks in advance, anyone who can explain. :-) Jwrosenzweig 17:01, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) Thanks, Kt, that makes sense. Should have checked the history. Consider me neutral for this vote. Jwrosenzweig 17:10, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, able to discuss and explain self as well as act. Stan 17:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral -- ends 17:44, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ChrisO

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

  • (Not a vote) - User has been here since October 21 and has 940 edits. →Raul654 00:10, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Did a complete rewrite of Kosovo War that was really needed, and has handled himself well with those that brought it to that state. Dori | Talk 00:14, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Chris appears to have a good understanding of Misplaced Pages and would make a good sysop. Angela. 07:39, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Immense patience shown. Morwen 07:40, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A really good contributor and works towards NPOV on controversial articles on central/east european topics. Secretlondon 07:51, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support 172 08:22, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support; nothing but net, as far I can see... Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 09:19, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Tuf-Kat
  • Support. I've known Chris O since the early days of the Scientology Internet war. He has treated this infamously controversial subject with honesty and lack of bias, and he has contributed enormously to those subjects here along with many others. --Modemac 20:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've seen nothing but good from Mr. O. --No-One Jones 21:29, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, welcome aboard! Meelar 02:01, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. john 04:28, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. He's done a fine and much needed job on the Kosovo related articles, and seems sensible....G-Man 18:47, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Primarily because Wik trusts him. --Uncle Ed 19:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • (belated) support. Tannin 10:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) (I should read this page more often)

Crikey - I wasn't expecting this at all! Thanks for the support, it's genuinely unexpected and I'm glad to have been able to make a contribution. So, ummm... do I get a gold star now or something? :-) -- ChrisO 23:45, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, in 5 more days if there's still a consensus some bureaucrate will make you an admin. --Uncle Ed 19:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 14 for, 0 against. (ends 00:06, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I can't make out whether Tuf-Kat's vote is for or against. Anyone care to make a guess? -- ChrisO 09:42, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Requests for adminship

Please add new requests to the top

Francs2000

(link: user:Francs2000 added by himself | talk)

  • I've been toying with the idea of requesting this for a few weeks now, and have been watching this page to see what goes on. I'm probably a borderline case. I've had this user name for five months and in that time have done almost 3,000 edits, including some disambiguation, fixing double redirects and recently tidying up the votes for deletion page. Before that I was an anonymous user for about five months and did some major editing to Buckinghamshire, Aylesbury and some other related pages. I would like admin abilities so that I can be involved more. -- Graham  :) 11:37, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • For further info the following edits were all mine: , , , , , , , -- Graham  :) 14:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

CdaMVvWgS

(link: user:CdaMVvWgS added by himself | talk)

  • I'm interested in becoming administrator because I did many edits when I was logged in and lots of edits when I was logged out (The most articles about Nauru and Basel are created and edited by myself). I think it doesn't matter anybody when I'd be an administrator. When there is someone who agrees with me it would be nice. Greetings. CdaMVvWgS
    • Oppose at present; there aren't enough edits under his username to fairly judge. Perhaps he should assign non-logged in edits to his username. -- Seth Ilys 21:49, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I'm not convinced CdaMVvWgS knows enough about how Misplaced Pages works to be an admin just yet. Angela. 21:58, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Only 300 edits since November, and unpronounceable name means I won't be even be able to remember who he is. It's hard enough now to distinguish between 172 and 168. --Uncle Ed
  • At a minimum would have to change username to a recognizable one. (btw, I have no trouble keeping 172 and 168 apart - 172 reminds me of my birthday). -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 00:39, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

waltersimons

(link: user:Waltersimons added by fabiform | talk)

I know, I know. One should be member of wikipedia for some time, longer than a month. But I use the wikipedia service now already for about two years, I edited so many pages already, and recently I thought, "well, why not become a member, so others can see who this great contributor is".

So I decided to create an account, but far far too late. Had I created an account two years ago, I'm pretty sure there would be no problem now with becoming admin. I thought, this time I won't make that mistake of applying too late, better apply too early! The worst thing that can happen, is that you decline my request for admin. What will I do then? I'll wait for 6 months or so, make some edits in the mean time, and apply again.

To tell you the truth, I expect that you decline my request for the time-reason that I am very well aware of. Nobody ever does what I tell them to, I tell my colleagues for 3 months that Clark is the guy to vote for, but what does he do, 2 weeks before super-tuesday? He drops out! I write Clark an email not to skip Iowa, but what does he do? Skips Iowa!

To regain my self-confidence you can do two things: A Vote for Kerry/Edwards/Kucinich/Sharpton in November, B make me admin!

Sincerely,

Walter Simons

  • Oppose. You don't have the edits; and the edits you have don't impress me. Consider that you could also wait to be nominated. Charles Matthews 13:45, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the above reasons. I counted that you had 10 non userpage or talk page edits. Also, you give no reason why you want/need to be an admin. If you made edits prior to creating an account, you might want to get them assigned to your username. I've just put a "welcome" message on your talkpage, it contains some useful links. fabiform | talk 14:02, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Defer. If you have been editing for several years, please indicate which IP addresses (and IP ranges, from early on) that you edited from, so the veracity of this claim can be checked. - Mark 14:08, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote from me yet. Mark beat me to it. Walter, compile for us a list of IPs you've worked under. I don't knoe if it will help your case, but it might. Kingturtle 19:11, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. Please specify the IPs you've worked under, so I can better get a sense of the quality of your work. The 30 edits I see from you give me no reason to distrust you, but you say you have a larger pool by which we can judge your work, thus the reason for the conditional support vote. Metasquares 19:30, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Waltersimons' above comments and his user page are quite politically pointed and border on inflammatory, which leads me to worry that he won't exercize the discretion required of an admin. - Seth Ilys 22:36, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Not enough edits. RickK`
  • I don't always have the same IP adress, it is dynamic, I believe. How can I see what IPs I ever had? Walter Simons
    • Well, you should remember which articles you worked on. Go to the pages histories and find the IPs you had...click on them to find their histories. Kingturtle 10:55, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think he's just joking. Admins need to know when to be serious. --Uncle Ed 14:30, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Conditional support. I want to see some more of your edits. I don't need to see that many to be convinced, but I do want to get an idea of what kind of Wikipedian you are.
    • --cprompt 18:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

Please add new requests to the top


cprompt

I've been a sysop here for quite a while, and somewhat recently on the Simple English Misplaced Pages. I believe in the philosophy that being a sysop is "no big deal", and requests should only be denied if the community fears that a user will abuse the few powers given to sysops. I'm not a fan of sysops taking unilateral action, and I do not think that I have ever abused my awesome sysop powers. cprompt 18:16, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pakaran

I've been a sysop here for several months, and was one of the bureaucrats on meta for the 20 or so hours when that meant anything. I doubt I'd be promoting that many people with so many users of far greater insomnia abilities beating me to it, but I'd like to request bureaucrat status so that I can help out if it ever becomes necessary. Pakaran. 10:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Optim

  • I think it may be useful to be able grant adminship in the Greek Misplaced Pages (el:) in the future without bothering a developer. Hopefully I can be more useful as a bureaucrat. Optim 04:26, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. But I don't think the English RFA is the right place to be asking. Angela. 19:36, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. Fuzheado 11:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Infrogmation

I've been a contributor to Misplaced Pages since September of 2002, and was granted admin status (without asking for it first) in February of 2003. I hang around Misplaced Pages a good deal and try to be helpful and useful. I request bureaucrat status. -- Infrogmation 17:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Angela. 19:36, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Decumanus 22:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Michael Snow 00:51, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support, fine sir. Kingturtle 10:29, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. Stan 17:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  6. Fuzheado 10:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  7. Uncle Ed 14:27, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 7 support, 0

Ed Poor

I'd like to be a bureaucrat. I am a developer and used to be just about the only one who did sysop promotion. I think I'm good enough at detecting consensus to be trusted with the "promote" button. --Uncle Ed 18:13, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • I have to oppose. This user has assumed the worst about me (going so far as to publically suggest I am a banned user) and has variously failed to strike me as someone with an astute appraisel of others. Sam Spade 18:36, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No, I just suspected you were a "sock puppet". (If you're Jack Lynch, then I'm right.) If I thought you were using a sock puppet to evade a ban, I would have contacted Brion or Tim privately.
      • Actually, you accused me of perhaps being EoT . I notice it is hard to keep track of your mistaken allegations, but this one at least will be mentioned here. Your insinuation that I might utilize a sock puppet is similarilly a poor example of your assesment of charector. The multiple accusations against me have caused me to develop a less than favorable opinion of you (one that incidentilly I am striving to shed, as I DO see you as a good admin.) I just don't think this is the right timing nor circumstance for a promotion. Sam Spade 02:45, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Ed, this user was previously User:JackLynch. He asked to have his username changed, and Tim did so. The confusion results from the fact that Jack/Sam doesn't like other people pointing out that User:JackLynch is now User:Sam Spade, as I'm now doing. - snoyes 22:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Thanks, kinda :p Sam Spade 02:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think Ed has established a reputation for himself as being very fair. →Raul654 18:21, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just days ago he asked to be desysopped, and I'm still waiting for that. --Wik 18:22, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wik, assuming you mean that seriously, I think I should tell you that (as best I can tell) Ed was being sarcastic about the desysopping. →Raul654 23:44, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
      • Probably, but he should have been serious. He violated the rules, and should be temporarily desysopped for it. --Wik 23:47, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Anthony DiPierro 18:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Hopefully we will get a chance to elect bureaucrats in future. Warofdreams 18:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The decisions of a bureaucrat will be transparent anyway -- if they don't promote someone who is obviously supported, there will be unrest. :-) I say that as a general argument: certainly I trust Ed's judgment even if it was not transparent. Jwrosenzweig 18:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ed is a real good guy and excellent Wikipedian that is able to admit when he is wrong. I don't think that he will promote any users that should not be. --mav 23:40, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: as a Developer, I could promote myself with a SET user_rights = "bureaucrat" query, but I'm not going to do that. I ain't no stinkin' unilateralist, man! I go with the flow, seeking that perfect balance between wave and board so eloquently promoted by my sock puppet, er, alter ego, "Surfer Dude". --Uncle Ed 19:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Refusing to act? Spoken like a true bureaucrat. Refusing to act unilaterally. Spoken like a true Misplaced Pages bureaucrat. Support, and thank you Ed for taking this task on board, alongside the mailing list administration and the tireless article mediation you've done for so well for a long time now. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:41, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, that query would make you only a bureaucrat, which is probably not what you want. Pakaran. 10:05, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Jiang
  • Support. jengod 01:05, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I commend Ed for taking the initiative to make bureaucrat status subject to a vote. However, it's a little confusing to see it listed as a request for adminship. We either need a separate section for this, or a separate page. --Michael Snow 01:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Disagree strongly. As I've said three times in the last hour, Misplaced Pages already has a lot of pages that require maintenence, and the last thing we need is another. There are going to be very, very few requests for beuracratic status, so (for the few we do get) this page would suit us just fine. →Raul654 01:16, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. Danny 02:41, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, how do we know that if he runs the promomtion query granting him those powers, that he won't abuse his new powers? Perhaps the reason he is asking to be invited to run the query to grant himself the powers is the same reason vampires need to be invited to enter a house (which I however never quite understood)... Ok, just joking. Support. Κσυπ Cyp   14:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I really respect Ed for holding some strong, minority points of view without getting in revert wars over them, not to mention for managing to calm down Gdansk. Pakaran. 14:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I would support Ed Poor personally, but since I am a member of the Mediation Committee, count me as neutral. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 14:54, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Infrogmation 15:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Arwel 18:51, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. theresa knott 20:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
15 to 2 is a good as you could hope with a group that large. Consensus ≠ unanimous. I say make yourself a bureaucrat. →Raul654 20:20, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support/Oppose, depending. I'm afraid I agree with some of what Sam/Jack said, that Ed is a hasty and judgmental appraiser of behavior. I also agree that he is good spirited. To the extent people express their feelings clearly, and to the extent the exact degree of concensus necessary for promotion to syshophood is clear, then I trust that Ed knows how to count, is honest, and will respect what he perceives to be the wishes of the community. But I don't consider him either an astute judge of nuances or a master of restraint. I'd like to know better what the job entails before I either support or oppose.168...|...Talk 20:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Your description of my character is spot-on, Mr. 24x7! I admit to having been hasty, judgmental and no master of restraint. I'm hoping my awareness of these character flaws will enable me to keep them in check. I did list myself at ], in part because I realized I had crossed a line with Wik; I really want this to be a community where we all work together harmoniously. --Uncle Ed 20:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Ams80 20:29, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Kingturtle 00:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of the unilateral ban of Wik less than 7 days before this and the writing above saying he isn't a unilateralist, suggesting a lack of recognition of his own tendency to act in haste. Also because he continues to advocate unilateral banning on the mailing list. Ed, please at least be consistent in your opposition to unilateralism, through your deeds as well as your words in all places, not just this page. Once you are, I'll support this. Until then, I don't think you're recognising how you really act. Jamesday 01:58, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. And this request is really unnecessary. I made myself a bureaucrat as soon as that flag became available. If Ed was previously trusted to make sysops, I don't see why he shouldn't be trusted now. Bureaucrats cannot desysop users, anyway, so the worst "unilateral action" Ed can take is make someone a sysop who shouldn't be. Big whoop.—Eloquence 02:10, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is a big whoop, especially given the recent troubles Misplaced Pages has had with inappropriate sysop behavior. -- Seth Ilys 18:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I likewise find such mirthful scoffings at the misconduct of ones peers, and dismisal of the complaints of ones subordinates to be yet another sign of the wiki's rapid decent into oligarchy. Sam Spade 20:45, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Angela. 08:19, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Although it's not specifically stated, I believe that we should wait the full week for bureaucrat nominations, just as with adminship -- especially when someone is self-nominated. I oppose until 18:13 UTC on 25 February 2004, at which time my vote becomes support. -- Seth Ilys 00:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It is specifically stated. 7 days. Kingturtle 00:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It's specifically stated for adminship, not bureaucratship. I'm not trying to cause trouble, but we really should do things properly. My vote was specifically in response to Raul's comment suggesting Ed go ahead and give himself the status before the vote was concluded. The community should probably also vote on Eloquence's bureaucratship. - Seth Ilys 18:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the same reasons as Sam Spade, Wik and Jamesday; Ed has shown himself to be a hasty judge of character, and has acted without the consensus of the Misplaced Pages. I also have to disagree with Eloquence, in that a rogue Admin can do a lot of damage to Misplaced Pages's content and reputation. The democratic election of admins and bureaucrats on Misplaced Pages is not something to be taken lightly. - DropDeadGorgias 19:06, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Ed and Erik are developers. There is no need to vote on either of them. They can make sysops at will by directly writing the database. All a bureaucrat flag does is enable them to do it through a proper interface rather than having to mess around with memcached as they used to have to do. Opposing it makes no sense. These people already the ability to do these things. What is there to vote on? Angela. 21:30, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • I suppose you have to go through all of this paperwork and meaningless arguments to prove that you're up for the "bureaucracy". I suppose my main complaint with this nomination discussion was the quick dismissal of a democratic solution. I agree with you that this discusison is a farce though- I assume that Ed will merely take Eloquence's route out. - DropDeadGorgias 22:33, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • No, I won't. I'm quite serious about what Jimbo said (and what Wik and others also want): that admins should not be unilateralists. I can ssh my way into the database and do anything, but I won't. We ALL should follow an orderly, agreed-upon process. --Uncle Ed 13:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support; long-time admin I trust. --Delirium 22:39, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support... ugen64 04:13, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC) (I changed the tally, is that what I'm supposed to do?)
  • Support. We trust Ed enough to give him access to the code; certainly we can trust him with bureaucrat status. I'm even more convinced of this than I was earlier after reading this discussion. Metasquares 19:18, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Decumanus 22:34, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. If Ed already has access to the database it makes sense to formalise the rights that he already effectively has. He could create sysops any time he likes (not that I think he has done this) but it can only be a good thing if his sysop-creation rights are exercised in a transparent way. That way we can all keep an eye on what he's up to. ;-) -- ChrisO 09:49, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, a formality really. Fuzheado 11:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I trust Ed more than any other Wikipedian. --cprompt 18:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Support. Nico 20:49, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. 172 01:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 25 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral (When tally ends on 18:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC), Seth's oppose flips to support)

Kingturtle

I too would like to be a bureaucrat. I have been an admin for about nine months. Although I have strong (and sometimes unpopular) opinions, I am very careful how I utilize my admin powers; I consider my admin actions fair and in good wiki-spirit. I take my responsibilities as admin very seriously. I live best I can to the parting words of Larry Sanger, and of all the articles I've written I am most proud of Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz. Kingturtle 04:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 10 support, 0 oppose.

  • Support. 172 01:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Requests for de-bureacratorship

Cimon Avaro

I would like asssurances that I will never be made a bureaucrat of any wikipedia. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 20:04, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Cimon should become super-bureaucrat overruling all bureaucrats on all Wikimedia projects. Angela. 20:43, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thrusting power on those who want it least? That's very American of you Angela. Good work ;) →Raul654 20:45, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • From what I've heard from Tim and Brion, this bureaucrat issue may be eliminated in the future. Support Cimon for non-bureaucratship. Maximus Rex 21:16, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • WOw WOw WOW ow WYu Must be a Bureauf5at because U cant spell it!! ugen64 </sacrasm> 04:34, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • You request will be considered once you've filled out form twenty-seven bee stroke zed in triplicate and file it at the wikipedia ministry of information. Fuzheado
  • Oppose -- Cimon cannot shirk his duties. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • Oppose. Too unpredictable at times. No offense. 172 01:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

De-adminship