Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:07, 28 February 2004

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 and Misplaced Pages:Recently created bureaucrats.

Nominations for adminship

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

Please place new nominations at the top

Texture

I am nominating Texture for adminship. He does a great job of keeping an eye on new contributions and catching any vandalisms. I haven't noticed any wrongdoings on the part of Texture, and I think Misplaced Pages could use another watchful eye on RC. The bare facts: over 1300 edits, been here since November 20. Dori | Talk 03:01, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. --Jiang 13:02, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Angela. 16:56, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. cprompt 19:38, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Danny

Arvindn

Arvindn has between 1000- 1500 edits since Nov 2002 and has stepped up his contribution lately. He is knowledgeable, reliable, balanced and consistent. I have come across his contributions mostly with reference to India- related edits, however as his user page suggests, he has other interests too. He would be valuable as an administrator. KRS 13:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Support. An excellent contributor Chancemill 14:19, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I'm surprised he wasn't nominated sooner. Angela. 17:33, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Seems a most sensible user. Charles Matthews 17:39, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Support. More Indians is good. Secretlondon 20:19, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- Infrogmation 21:17, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Support Perl 03:33, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --cprompt 19:36, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- Danny 19:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 6 support, 0 oppose -- ends 13:51, 04 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tillwe

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

• It's not easy to say no when so many people say yes, so I'll accept it (happily, with many thanks and feeling honoured) to be nominated -- even if I don't think that I will be able to spend much more time than now with Misplaced Pages. If I'll be made administrator, I hope I don't have to change my way of using and working with Misplaced Pages very much. In becoming an admin I see mostly a bit of extra responsibility, and hopefully will behave accordingly to that ;-) -- till we *) 10:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

1. 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)
2. Support. Thought he/she already was an admin! --Delirium 20:40, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
3. 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)
4. Absolutely support. Kosebamse 20:51, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
5. Sure, he sounds responsible and probably won't go loco like so many others have. --Menchi 21:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
6. Support. Michael Snow 22:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
7. Support 172 23:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
8. Support. Angela. 02:33, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
9. Support. Tuf-Kat 15:11, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
10. Support Secretlondon 17:42, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
11. Uncle Ed 21:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
12. Support. --Jiang
13. Support. Perl 14:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
14. Support. -- Infrogmation 21:17, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
15. Support. -- Stewart Adcock 17:12, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
16. Support. Totally. RickK 07:57, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
17. Support. Dori | Talk 16:36, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
18. Support. --cprompt 19:36, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)~
19. Support. --Danny 19:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 16 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)

Wow! I'd like to thank Maximus for the nomination and everyone for their kind comments and support. I've never been one to impose; to make others uncomfortable is not why I'm here. So, assuming there are no express objections to my adminship, I'd be both honoured and happy to accept. I can say in confidence that I will not take my duties lightly. Thanks again! -- Hadal 03:29, 27 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 gladly. He's very attentive and responsive. This gemmologist will make a friendly admin. --Menchi 09:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Support Perl 00:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I too am concerned a little about the briefness of time here, but I think it's borderline enough that Hadal's good record of edits and combatting the occasional vandal makes him a wise choice. Jwrosenzweig 17:41, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I think his edits prove him trustworthy. Metasquares 18:28, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Support Secretlondon 20:20, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, along the same lines as Metasquares. Ryan and/or Mero 06:29, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --cprompt 16:54, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Support. jengod 01:49, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --Danny 19:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 10 support, 1 neutral -- ends 05:49, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Requests for adminship

Please add new requests to the top

David Newton

• I've been editing the Misplaced Pages since last June. In that time, I have made just over 2,100 major edits, and a lot more minor edits. I don't generally edit pages that involve edit wars, although I did make one rather rash edit last November about Malathir Mohammed. I occasionally make mistakes when creating pages, thus leading to URLs with typos in them. If nothing else, I would like the ability to remove those without bothering anybody else!

Support:

1. Rlandmann 08:06, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
2. Angela. 17:33, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
3. Secretlondon 20:33, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
4. Geoff 21:27, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
5. Uncle Ed 18:31, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 5 support, 0 oppose -- ends 08:06, 04 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RadicalBender

• I think I'm in the same boat as Graham listed below. :) I've been kind of lurking on this page to get a feel for what happens here. I've been here since September 2003 (with a temporary hiatus from editing because of real life "busyness") and have about 2,000 edits to by credit. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is Edit #2000 exactly (at least, I've been trying to time it as such). :) Anyways, I usually don't make requests like this myself if it can be helped (it seems..."presumptuous" to me, I think), but I would like the additional capabilities to help ward off vandals. RadicalBender 17:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Nanshu 02:05, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
2. Very impressive history. Great images uploaded. Thorough edits. Well-thoughtout redirects. Battles with vandals. No edit wars. Likes baseball. Kingturtle 02:23, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
3. I'm quite impressed by his user history as well. He's been quite a diligent and active copyeditor. 172 02:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
4. Angela. 17:33, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
5. Quality contributor. Jwrosenzweig 17:36, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
6. Warofdreams 18:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
7. Michael Snow 18:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
8. Secretlondon 20:53, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
9. Infrogmation 21:17, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
10. Danny 19:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 10 Support, 0 Opposed -- ends 17:22, 03 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Francs2000

• 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)

1. Support. Angela. 02:33, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
2. Support. According to the best of my knowledge and belief, Francs2000 will be a useful and good admin. Optim 03:16, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
3. Support. The few times I've encountered him here, he seems to be doing very good work. Jwrosenzweig 19:26, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
4. Support. Seems sensible G-Man 23:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
5. Support. Francs2000 speaks modestly; he is a prime candidate for sysophod. --cprompt 02:43, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
6. Support. Good edits. Interest in thwarting vandals. No history of edit wars or trolling at all. Kingturtle 02:36, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
7. Support. Warofdreams 18:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
8. Support. Michael Snow 18:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
9. Support. (web of trust thing) --Uncle Ed 20:02, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
10. Support Secretlondon 20:55, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
11. Support. Danny 19:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 11 support, 0 oppose -- ends 11:37, 01 Mar 2004 (UTC)

CdaMVvWgS

• 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. --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)
• Conditional support if those 300 edits are verifiable, and user agrees to a name change. --cprompt 02:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• CdaMVvWgS, keep up the good work. IMHO, you are not yet qualified to be an admin (this is a vote in opposition), but someday you definitely could! So hang in there. And don't change your user name. Kingturtle 03:01, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• I'll support, as the edit history, though short, looks strong enough. And Ed, I just think of him as "C-Dam". Meelar 03:20, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

Please add new requests to the top

denny

Maybe this is the wrong place, but I'd like to ask for bureaucratship on the Croatian Misplaced Pages. The request on the inlwiki-l mailing list, it seems, have not been seen. I have made quite some edits on the English and German Misplaced Pages, I am here for months, I didn't get into any edit wars, and I have a long history of edits on the Croatian Misplaced Pages (the only Misplaced Pages I asked for adminship. It was granted immeadiatly then). I don't ask for bureaucratship because I want the power, but in order to achieve greater autonomy and independence for the Croatian Misplaced Pages. If this is the wrong place to ask, I kindly ask to be forgiven and to be told, where to ask actually, but I thought, only developers can make anyone a bureaucrat, and well, our developers are not seperated by language, so I can ask here as well (thinking, that the number of Croatian speaking developers is probably pretty small :). --denny vrandečić 16:24, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

1. Support. --Uncle Ed 18:26, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
2. Support. Denny is the heart and soul of the Croatian Misplaced Pages. -- Zmaj 07:23, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
3. Support --cprompt 16:57, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

All sysops

I nominate all sysops to be bureaucrats to save having to vote on everyone twice. Angela. 02:33, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

• All sysops who appear on this page? or All sysops of Misplaced Pages as they appear in Misplaced Pages:Administrators ? Optim 03:18, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I mean any sysop who asks to be one. I don't think there should be a vote each time. They can just put their name here and be made one right away. Angela. 04:04, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Since bureaucrats can only make sysops, not de-sysop anybody, I don't see why the ability can't be given to all sysops. Also, it would get rid of the name bureaucrat, which has negative implications to many people. All sysops would have to abide by RfA procedures, of course. Creating a sysop without following the process would be a serious misuse of admin privileges. --Michael Snow 16:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
2. Makes sense to me. I don't like the idea of a new level of hierarchy. Like most things here, sysoping someone can, technically speaking, be undone, so it is not like it is a dangerous weapon. -- Viajero 16:57, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
3. Agree with Viajero - keep the hierarchy to a minimum. →Raul654 17:45, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
4. Unlike Optim, I can't think of any admin who couldn't be trusted with this ability. Certainly it makes more sense than marching the 100+ of us through here (and honestly, I think most of us would like the option to be able promote). Jwrosenzweig 17:46, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
5. In my mind, this whole bureaucrat idea seems somewhat superfluous anyway. Stewart Adcock 19:22, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
6. conditionally. It doesn't need to be thrusted. Give it to only those who request, but to so immediately since the requests are almost occupying half this page. Giving bureaucrat status to inactive accounts is a bad idea. Unlike the other admin functions, only a few people need to hold the power. --Jiang 03:44, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
7. Down with the cabal! Lirath Q. Pynnor
8. I seriously doubt that any sysop would abuse bureaucrat powers... and in what way is making someone a bureaucrat any more dangerous than, say, vandalizing the main page or blocking sysops for no reason? ugen64 04:25, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

   (I have already voted Oppose above) Try to imagine what a drunk sysop who gets mad could do: he/she could grant sysop access to trolls and vandals. then, they could do the same, and start destoying Misplaced Pages. In such a case only an SQL query could fix the db. isn't this enough for having a separate hierarchy level? Optim 04:50, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Did you have someone special in mind? :-D Anyway, I don't think we should have anyone who wishes to destoy wikipedia as even a sysop. That is teh correct level for our last and only line of defence. Anyway, count me as a suppository for the concept of sysop=Bureaucrat. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 03:07, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

You know what we do with suppositories, don't you? ;-) -- Viajero 21:42, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Bureaucrathood already carries a power that I consider to be far more dangerous than the ability to delete pages or ban users. Buraeucrathood could someday carry other powers. I disagree in automatically allowing all sysops to have bureaucrat powers (although I think most of them should be, anyway!) Perhaps, to streamline the process, we can allow people to request bureaucrathood without being an admin to begin with, and a consenting vote could imply adminship as well as bureaucrathood. --cprompt 02:39, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) Support. After speaking to Angela on IRC, I'm convinced that a whole bunch of sockpuppets would be easy to deal with. It would be noticed quickly if someone was sysopped who wasn't on Requests for adminship, and the original offending sysop can be desysopped, and his actions undone with relative ease, as well as the actions of any of his puppets. --cprompt 16:17, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

1. Defer, too new to wikipedia. (once user:allsysops has more than 1,000,000,000,000 edits, I will support. Perl 15:31, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Oppose. Wouldn't that defeat the point of having a separate bureaucrat status in the first place? Metasquares 13:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
   • Yes it would, but are there any sysops who would not be supported should they apply for bureaucrat status? If sysops are going to apply for it, I can't see the point of voting on them. Angela. 13:18, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I may trust someone to hit the "delete" or the "block" linky, but I may not like him/her to have the ability of sysoping. Optim 16:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
3. Oppose. If sysops are going to have greater powers than now, this sort of snap vote is hardly the way to do it. Charles Matthews 22:54, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
4. Oppose, I'm already disturbed w all the power sysops have, why give them the power to reproduce as well?!? Sam Spade 23:01, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
   • It isn't giving them any power as all requests still have to go through this page. The only change I would suggest is that a fixed percentage of votes be decided on that allows promotion. If this were agreed on, then there would be no decision-making aspect, thereby giving sysops no additional powers. Perhaps that could be discussed on the talk page? Angela. 23:37, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
     • That would be a system more clearly open to manipulation, wouldn't it? A fixed tally or percentage of votes doesn't say much, when typically under 10% of sysops vote in a given poll. Charles Matthews 15:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
5. Oppose. It nearly defeats the purpose of having burocracy/democracy if the executive branch is also the legislative/judical. Gamera2 05:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Horrendous risk of rogue admin promoting sock puppets. --Uncle Ed 15:55, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
   • What if they did? Theose sock puppets could be desysopped easily enough and they wouldn't be able to do any more damage than the original rogue sysop could anyway. Angela. 17:33, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
7. Oppose. 172 02:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
8. Oppose. -- Kaihsu 18:46, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I don't see much benefits with the proposal. I belive one should always keep some distance to all possibilities of 'disasters' - if a unfortunate promotion to sysadm is made, there should be some minimum time until the user might become a bureaucrat - by basically the same reason a 'ordinary user' doesn't become a sysadms immediately upon request. And, I'm not sure about how its done in practice, but is it possible for a bureaucrat, in this proposal, to create new bureaucrats? That would, for sure, be disastrous. Mikez 04:13, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
   • Yes, bureaucrats can create other bureaucrats. Angela. 16:56, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
10. Oppose, all that separation of power fun-stuff Fennec 16:04, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
11. Oppose on the grounds that I don't like general, blanket statements. Dori | Talk 16:36, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Danny 19:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 9 support, 12 oppose, 1 neutral -- ends 02:33, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

172

I've been a sysop for quite a while too, and an active user since 2002. There ought to be a historian among the bureaucrats, BTW. 172 01:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Support Secretlondon 17:44, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support G-Man 23:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too contentious, too easily involved in edit wars, refuses to be civil. RickK 04:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Has a history of issues, including relatively recent edit wars. Maximus Rex 08:19, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • How are edit wars relevant to the role of bureaucrat? All they can do is sysop people that already have support on this page. That won't help them in edit wars. Angela. 16:56, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons above. cprompt 16:39, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Among those voting, the users who work with me on a regular basis (Jiang, Lir, and G-Man) are casting a support vote. That should be considered. 172 02:56, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Name is not memorable, and hasn't shown ability to respect consensus. Still good admin, though :-) --Uncle Ed 15:57, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Bureaucrats aren't supposed to be memorable. The name is fine. --Jiang
• Support. --Wik 19:21, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Support Lirath Q. Pynnor

Tally: 5 support (plus those supporting "all sysops" in the above category), 4 oppose -- ends 17:44, 02 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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)

Support:

1. Lirath Q. Pynnor
2. It's all about trust, and I certainly think that cprompt is trustworthy enough to use the power that comes with bureaucracy responsibly. Metasquares 13:05, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
3. Perl 23:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
4. RickK 04:07, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
5. Trustworthy, and has gained Lir's trust. --Uncle Ed 15:58, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
6. Support. --Jiang
7. Support. Meelar 01:12, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
8. Support. Crackshoe 17:40, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC) (This is a sock puppet account →Raul654)

No, it's a friend of mine who I've introduced to Misplaced Pages today. Disregard the vote if newbies don't count. --cprompt 19:31, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Oppose. Prone to making unfair accusations 172 02:56, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 6 support (plus those supporting "all sysops" in the above category), 1 oppose -- ends 18:16, 01 Mar 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)

S

1. Support. Fuzheado 11:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
2. Support. Michael Snow 22:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
3. Support. I think that Pakaran would make a great bureaucrat. Metasquares 13:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
4. Support Secretlondon 17:47, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
5. Support. RickK 04:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
6. Support strongly! One of the best sysops, very low-key but highly responsible. Provided the spark that made me decide to request bureaucrat rights rather than surreptiously assign them to myself. (If you can't decide between me and him, pick him!) --Uncle Ed 16:05, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
7. You mean I have to choose? ;-) Support. --cprompt 18:58, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
8. Support. Jiang
9. Support. Dysprosia 20:19, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
10. Support. Jwrosenzweig 00:56, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
11. Support. Fennec 16:02, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
12. Support. Dori | Talk 16:36, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

O:

1. Oppose. Uncivil. --Wik 19:21, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 12 support (plus those supporting "all sysops" in the above category), 1 oppose -- ends 10:08, 01 Mar 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)

1. Support. Fuzheado 11:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
2. Support. Secretlondon 17:44, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
3. Support. Jiang
4. Support. Not wanting to bother others is a good trait. You are my role model, Optim. --Uncle Ed 18:25, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
5. Support of course. Dori | Talk 16:36, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
6. Support. Danny 19:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 5 support (plus those supporting "all sysops" in the above category), 0 oppose -- ends 11:01, 01 Mar 2004 (UTC)

De-adminship

• See Misplaced Pages:Requests for de-adminship and Misplaced Pages:Possible misuses of admin privileges