Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Hcheney (talk | contribs)
3,439 edits
support
Hcheney (talk | contribs)
3,439 edits
removed Lst27 - linked at unsupported applications
Line 186: Line 186:


# This may sound unusual, but I'm neutral only because of this user's relatively few discussions on his talk page and other talk pages. While this is probably a good sign, I feel it's important to be able to gauge how a prospective admin relates directly to other users, as well as editing articles. [[User:Bcorr|BCorr]]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>[[User talk:Bcorr|&#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085;]] 13:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# This may sound unusual, but I'm neutral only because of this user's relatively few discussions on his talk page and other talk pages. While this is probably a good sign, I feel it's important to be able to gauge how a prospective admin relates directly to other users, as well as editing articles. [[User:Bcorr|BCorr]]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>[[User talk:Bcorr|&#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085;]] 13:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

===[[User:Lst27|Lst27]] (3/11/3)===

Hi. I am nominating myself for adminship. I have written a lot of different articles on different topics, especially people in politics (governors, etc.). I have written a lot of the [[MathCounts]] article. I also contributed to the Chinese Wikipedia and the Spanish Wikipedia. I have made more than 1000 contributions to the English Wikipedia.

I did not nominate anybody for adminship in the past more than 30 days. I have now changed my idea about what being an administrator is like. So please support me. Your help will be appreciated. Thanks. Also, by the way, I am not [[User:AlexPlank]]. --[[User:Lst27|Lst]][[User talk:Lst27|''27'']] 22:23, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''''I am NOT [[User:AlexPlank]].''''' --[[User:Lst27|Lst]][[User talk:Lst27|''27'']] 21:39, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
#Seems to have stopped the behavior that was problematic last time. Consensus seemed to be that if behavior was stopped, should be supported. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 00:33, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
#Someone who wants adminship so badly might turn out to be an exceptionally good admin, or so it seems to me. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 01:47, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Danny|Danny]] 01:44, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''
#Even if you are not Alex-Perl-etc, you suffer from the same disease: i dont trust people with such an obsession for power. What about getting yourself a boy/girlfriend instead of nominating yourself every month? [[User:Muriel Gottrop|Muriel G]] 08:06, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#:While that did make me laugh, I think that's a *tad* harsh. [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 08:47, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
#::It's not meant to hurt, just a nice advice. [[User:Muriel Gottrop|Muriel G]] 14:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#:That was unnecessary and immature. Irrespective of your complaints or their merit, you needn't stoop to personal attacks. [[User:Cribcage|Cribcage]] 00:49, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#::Again, it was not a personal attack. As for the immature I will choose to believe you were referring to Alex, otherwise it is you who is personalattacking. [[User:Muriel Gottrop|Muriel G]] 14:36, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:UninvitedCompany|UninvitedCompany]] 15:40, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC). I am not prepared to consider Lst27 a "generally trusted member of the community" at this juncture. Lst27 appears to be editing in such a way as to satisfy the mechanical requirements for adminship (1000 edits and so forth), without truly embracing the community. His quite recent spate of inappropriate nominations of other users for adminship weighs on my mind. His insistent pleading for his own adminship leads me to question his motives, and he has done nothing to clarify what those motives are.
#I would be willing to support you if were nominated as User:AlexPlank and had all of your sockpuppet contributions attributed to that account. --[[User:Hcheney|"D<small>ICK</small>"]] [[User talk:Hcheney|C<small>HENEY</small>]] 15:55, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Crikey. I just read [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&dummy=1&diff=3621794&oldid=3621700]. '''Oppose.''' - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 18:58, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Strongly oppose. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|&#8226;­&#8226;]] 01:39, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#UninvitedCompany speaks my mind. -- [[User:Bcorr|BCorr]]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>[[User talk:Bcorr|&#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085;]] 01:50, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Deleting negative comments? Asides from showing a total lack of understanding how the Wikipedia works (bad), that pretty much goes against everything an admin is suppossed to do (worse). [[User:Oberiko|Oberiko]] 13:13, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#I recall that AlexPlank's other sockpuppets swore that they were not Aplank. - [[User:Snoyes|snoyes]] 12:31, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Oppose, unfortunately. There are too many questionable events in this user's past. [[User:RickK|Rick]]'''[[User talk:RickK|K''']] 20:27, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
#I'm deeply skeptical of this user. Oppose. [[User:John Kenney|john]] [[User_talk:John Kenney|k]] 21:05, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#''Me thinks the lady doth protest too much'' -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 12:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Neutral'''

#I'm unconvinced that [[User:Lst27|Lst]] has ill intents, but [[User:UninvitedCompany|UninvitedCompany]]'s comments resonate with me. I'd like to see several more months of good contributions before I consider supporting. [[User:Acegikmo1|Acegikmo1]] 08:27, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
#''(moved from "Oppose"'') If you're not [[User:Perl/contact|Alexander Douglas Plank of Charlottesville, VA]] (not [[User:AlexPlank]]&mdash;there's a subtle distinction), you're doing a damn good impression. (BTW, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&dummy=1&diff=3621794&oldid=3621700 Lst27's last (self)-nomination] might be instructive to anyone who's not familiar with the whole sordid saga of Alex Plank and his odd obsession with adminship.) [[User:Mirv|&#8212;No-One]][[User talk:Mirv|&nbsp;''Jones'']] 00:28, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#:To clarify "subtle distinction" a bit: Yes, obviously this isn't [[user:AlexPlank]]&mdash;it's [[user:Lst27]]&mdash;this is self-evident. The real question, which Lst27 hasn't answered (and, to be fair, nobody has asked) is this: Is (as I believe to be the case) the real-life person behind the name [[user:Lst27]] the same Alexander Douglas Plank who formerly used the accounts [[User:NASA]], [[User:Concinnity]], [[User:Perl]], [[user:AlexPlank]], [[User:Sennheiser]], [[User:Greenmountainboy]], and [[User:Alexandros]]? [[User:Mirv|&#8212;No-One]][[User talk:Mirv|&nbsp;''Jones'']] 05:50, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#::The real-life person behind the name [[User:Lst27]] is '''''not''''' the real-life person behind those other names. I am not lying. --[[User:Lst27]] 02:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#:::Thank you. I withdraw my opposition. [[User:Mirv|&#8212;No-One]][[User talk:Mirv|&nbsp;''Jones'']] 12:15, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#In light of what I've seen here...I'm not sure anymore. [[User:Ilyanep|Ilyanep]] 14:44, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Comments'''
* Have you any other convincing examples of why you'd make a good admin? e.g. staying cool during hot editing disputes? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 09:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**I too would like an answer to that question before I make up my mind. [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 20:19, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
***: As an administrator, I will try to do my best to stop the vandalism from happening. I can do that by blocking IPs and usernames, and protecting the pages that are frequently vandalised. I think that is one of the most important responsibilities as an administrator. I also want to edit protected pages, like the Main Page. --[[User:Lst27|Lst]][[User talk:Lst27|''27'']] 21:32, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
****Respectfully, I think you misunderstood the question. He was not asking *why* you want to be an admin, he was asking what you have done up to now to show us that you *will* be a good admin - have you been involved in any edit wars? If so, how did you comport yourself? How do you get along with other users? etc etc. [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 21:57, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

*****I have done a lot of good things to Wikipedia. I edited a lot, and was aware of the vandalism that is going on, and tried to stop it by reverting pages and giving them warnings that say "Please stop vandalising Wikipedia. You can be blocked if you continue to do so." or something like that. Read [[User talk:210.54.22.243]]. I also haven't been involved in a lot of edit wars. --[[User:Lst27|Lst]][[User talk:Lst27|''27'']] 20:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

* I have re-added my comments and those of others that Lst27 removed from this discussion in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=4163878&oldid=4162286 this edit]. It is not appropriate for any nominee here to refactor discussion and votes regarding their candidacy. Such refactoring should be done by others, if at all. I ask that my comments, in particular, be left here along with the context in which they were made until the vote is complete. [[User:UninvitedCompany|UninvitedCompany]] 02:22, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(Moved from opposing votes, as the vote was withdrawn)
#<s>If I am not misunderstanding then [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]]'s link shows [[User:Lst27|Lst27]] deleting opposing votes. Oppose</s>. [[User:Thue|Thue]] 19:43, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#:You are misunderstanding - it shows him deleting a previous self-nomination when it was obvious that he was not going to get sufficient support to become an administrator. This is reasonable of him. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 19:57, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
#::Check the edit summary. You might find that it speaks volumes about Lst27's opinion of the community. [[User:UninvitedCompany|UninvitedCompany]] 20:10, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#:::Well, the edit summery "Remove garbage" is not descriptive, and could mean he regards peoples opinions as garbage. But on the other hand the deleted info did not belong here any more and in that sense was garbage. So there may not be reason to read anything into it. [[User:Thue|Thue]] 21:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#::Sorry. Withdrawn. [[User:Thue|Thue]] 21:09, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#:No, I was referring to the actual text of the previous attempt. However, do note that in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=4163878&oldid=4162286 this edit], Lst27 removed comments from ''this'' discussion while it was in progress - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 09:06, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#::He deleted a comment that was withdrawn. Although he probably should have let someone else do it, or move it to comments, it was screwing up the vote total, and should be somewhere other than oppose. (In fact, I've just moved it to the comments). Still, I don't see this as searing immaturity. I can't help but feel as though people are fishing for reasons to oppose this, because of a lot of bad past experiences. While I agree with not voting for him on previous occurances (And I am troubled by the lack of admission to being Alex Plank, but I suppose I can admit the remote possibility he's not a rename.
#:If he is Alex Plank, however, I note the mention on his userpage of Asperger's syndrome. This makes me more inclined to give him a break as well. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 03:38, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
#::Having [[Asperger's syndrome]] would fit well with what I have seen here. I have seen actions from [[User:Lst27|Lst27]] which lacked understanding for what other people are comfortable with, but nothing which was neccesarily dishonest or wrong. I have also seen people assume the worst because of those things (as is mentioned in the Asperger's syndrome happens sometimes). Which right now makes me feel a bit bad for [[User:Lst27|Lst27]] because he seems to be treated badly without basis in reality, which can be quite a cruel thing to do. [[User:Thue|Thue]] 20:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#:::Of the several aspergics I know, I can't think of any who would act like this, particularly in print. Even without malicious intent, the lack of social ability would be sufficient to disqualify - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 09:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Though not directly relevant as to whether this individual would make a good admin, it is nonetheless illuminating to look at exactly what contributions he has made to the Spanish wikipedia, since he uses it here as evidence of his qualifications. Of his five edits there, two have been to his eight-word user page. The third involved removing an image tag from an article, the fourth changing {msg:stub} to {stub}, and the fifth wikifying several dates. No evidence therefore that in fact he actually ''speaks'' or even ''reads'' Spanish. -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]]

:The changing from {msg:stub} to {stub} on the Spiro Agnew article in the Spanish Wikipedia was done by User:Template namespace initialisation script. I created the article and User:Template namespace initialisation script was the one who actually changed {msg:stub} to {stub}. --[[User:Lst27|Lst]][[User talk:Lst27|''27'']] 20:30, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


==Requests for [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats|bureaucratship]]==
==Requests for [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats|bureaucratship]]==

Revision as of 20:56, 21 June 2004

Shortcut
WP:RFA does not stand for Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Administrators for what this entails and see Wikipedia:List of administrators for a list of current admins. See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia 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. It is expected that nominees will have good familiarity with Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Recently created admins and Wikipedia: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.

User:OldakQuill; (7/0/0) ends 22:00, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OldakQuill has in the three months since he came here created, cleaned up, expanded and in other ways tended to a myriad of stubs. He seems to enjoy Wikipedia and I can't find any conflicts in his past here. He is a devoted, hard-working Wikipedian with insight into what makes Wikipedia work. He has done more than 3200 edits. ✏ Sverdrup 21:52, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I accept this nomination with thanks. --Oldak Quill 22:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. ✏ Sverdrup 21:52, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. BCorr|Брайен 22:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. This user has done really good work recently. Support. Lst27 22:10, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. David Remahl 23:06, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. Cecropia | Talk 23:13, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC) He has done a mountain of work in minutae—redirects and starts, that especially suit him for an admin's duties, IMO. Gladly support.
  6. Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 01:14, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
  7. older≠wiser 15:44, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support --"DICK" CHENEY 20:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

User:JCarriker; (17/0/0) ends 02:48, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Excellent contributor, been here about a year, thousands of edits. - Hephaestos|§ 02:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I graciously accept. -JCarriker 02:50, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Hephaestos|§ 02:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) (assumed, forgot to vote)
  2. Cecropia | Talk 14:28, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) I graciously approve. ;-)
  3. Support... even though adminship is just receiving flak and having a whole bunch of red buttons on your console you can't touch. --"DICK" CHENEY 19:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. older≠wiser 22:00, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) Heh, you don't need to be an admin to catch a lot of flak around here.
  5. David Gerard 22:09, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. Rhymeless 22:39, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oberiko 00:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. theresa knott 05:22, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. Jiang 09:57, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) certainly deserves it
  10. Acegikmo1 11:29, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC). Theresa's questions brought up some of my own concerns and Jay's responses helped to convince me that he'll make a fine admin.
  11. Warofdreams 18:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  12. Danny 01:45, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  13. BCorr|Брайен 12:42, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  14. Lst27 03:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  15. Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 01:16, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Cribcage 03:31, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  17. Jwrosenzweig 16:11, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

comments I hate to do this, but I feel I must.

I have a few questions for JCarriker. I get the impression he is a sensitive soul and I wonder if he knows the kind of flack he might come in for once he is an admin.

  1. How will you react if you find yourself listed on "review of admin actions"?
  2. What if someone says you are part of an evil cabal?
  3. Or if someone vandalizes you user page or user talk page?
  4. What if another admin undoes something you did, accusing you of not following procedure?
  5. What if someone is very rude and agressive towards you when you were only trying to help them?

I'm not saying any of these things will happen, but they might. (I have had all this and more happen to me, and so have many other admins, but then I am very thick skinned) If they happen to you how will you feel about it?

I am also troubled by your "read this before posting" note on your talk page. It comes across as agressive.

Don't get me wrong. I think you are an excellent contributor of quality work. But I do think you haven't thought this through. You said not very long ago that you felt like a second class citizen here I don't want you to come under fire from some troublemaker accusing you of abuse of admin powers and then feel even worse. Admins need to be tough, very tough sometimes. Are you sure you want to be an admin? theresa knott 15:24, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please don't hate to do this, you have raised only valid points. I am very sensitive and I'm usuually open and honest with my feelings. I am actually a local political activist so I have actually had perosonal experience with many of the things you mentioned.
1. How will you react if you find yourself listed on "review of admin actions"?
  • I will be open and honest as I usually am. I've had people I've known my entire life level much more hurtful allegations at me and I'm still active in politics.
2. What if someone says you are part of an evil cabal?
  • I enjoy evil cabals; especially when their members are of such high quality. I have also supposedly been a puppet for various mythical organizations in Marshall for years, so it wouldn't be the first time.
3. Or if someone vandalizes you user page or user talk page?
  • I've had some one vandalize my house after a political election, and changing my name from Jay to Gay is a common albeit annoying practice among my rivals. My user page is much more easily redeemed.
4. What if another admin undoes something you did, accusing you of not following procedure?
  • I'll react as I do now, by asking them why on there talk page before I take any action myself; preferably after reaching consensus. I'm usually a by the book kind of person, my policies should be in accordance with wiki's. I've actually had a page I created deleted, you can find my reaction here: please see: User_talk:Jiang
5. What if someone is very rude and agressive towards you when you were only trying to help them?
  • I'll ask them to use wikiquette, and reiterate my statement. If that doesn't work I'll ask another party to step in, unless the situtation is too serious.
I am also troubled by your "read this before posting" note on your talk page. It comes across as agressive.
  • I'm sorry to here that, I certainly don't consider myself aggressive. I added the notice becuase my wikiquette posting seemed to be being ignored. There is also an extensive welcome section. Which parts do you find aggressive? I'm open to suggestions about how to improve it.
You said not very long ago that you felt like a second class citizen here I don't want you to come under fire from some troublemaker accusing you of abuse of admin powers and then feel even worse.
  • I've already been accused of being a racist on wikipedia, as a white Southerner I can't imagine a more hurtful and crafted attack. One of my primary reasons for feeling like a second class citizen was that after being at wiki for almost a year, I seemed to be a generally ignored figure. I decided that this was due to both the niche like nature of my work and have since started editng pages outside of that niche.
Are you sure you want to be an admin?
  • Yes, recieving adminship would signal that the community has confidence in me and that means a lot. It also makes it easier for me to combat vandalism when I come across it, something that is much more difficult without admin privelages.
I hope this answers your questions, I am of course still available for more answers and elaborations. I hope you will consider supporting me Theresa, but if you don't I know it's because you have my and wikipedia's best interests at heart.
-JCarriker 17:34, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my questions. I am very happy with your answers and have added my vote to support. As for the note on you user page, we'd best discuss it there. theresa knott 05:22, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:AndyL; (23/1/0) ends 20:00 21 June 2004 (UTC)

Great contributor - untold thousands of edits either under this name or at previous name Andylehrer since March 10. He was nominated a couple of times a month or two ago, and there seems to have been a general sense that more time was needed. But many people seem to become admins after three months or so, and he's made tons and tons of edits. john k 21:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination. I accept. AndyL 03:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Support

  1. john k 21:53, 13 Jun 2004 UTC)
  2. Support strongly. GrazingshipIV 23:04, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
  3. —No-One Jones 23:50, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. 172 02:04, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. Danny 02:07, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. Snowspinner 16:50, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Warofdreams 17:53, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support --"DICK" CHENEY 18:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. older≠wiser 18:45, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  10. Jwrosenzweig 19:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  11. BCorr|Брайен 17:52, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  12. Neutrality 18:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  13. David Gerard 19:46, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  14. Kingturtle 23:23, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  15. pir 23:32, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  16. The Undertones 07:22, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  17. Tuf-Kat 21:39, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
  18. SimonP 00:18, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
  19. Lst27 03:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  20. Tεxτurε 23:38, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  21. Secretlondon 01:25, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  22. Cecropia | Talk 01:47, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  23. Cribcage 03:32, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Impolite POV warrior. Generally good editor, but thats not what this job entails. Seems to have no grasp of Wikiquette nor wikipedia:civility. Sam [Spade] 00:49, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • I'm inclined to support, given my limited contact with Andy. Sam (or others), if you believe he's been uncivil or impolite, please offer a link or two? The only times I've seen Andy even get upset are in conversations with WHEELER, and while of course it is always better to remain calm, anyone here who's worked with WHEELER knows that frustration is often a product of that interaction. I intend to support in a couple of days, but will wait to see what counter-evidence there may be -- thanks. Jwrosenzweig 16:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I was refering mainly to the regularly acidic dialogue on Talk:Nazism and socialism, particularly in the archives. He utilized ad hominem arguments regularly, and pressed a "socialism has never truely existed (except maybe in cuba...)" POV. Sam [Spade] 17:50, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't recall ad hominems, and I certainly don't recall any praise of Castro's Cuba. I do remember some of the "socialism has never truly existed" stuff, but only in talk. I've had some disagreements with him over edits (at the page Sam cites, for instance), but I've always thought he's handled it pretty well. john k 19:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Sam, I've read through the last three archives at the page. I had to go all the way to the end of March to find behavior of Andy's that seemed at all questionable to me, and I would say that, given the context, Andy was behaving essentially like everyone else -- that is, there was a bitt of "point-scoring" and rhetoric flying around, which he took part in for a while. It isn't significant enough to cause me much concern, especially given that, since that time, he has shown a remarkable amount of calm on that page, even during WHEELER's frenzied assertions that Nazism was "LEFT LEFT LEFT!!!" Anyone who can hang on to their senses in that situation has enough patience for me, especially as I see no ad hominem attacks even in Andy's more wild discussions from late March. Andy is welcome to have opinions that I disagree with, as long as he handles himself well, and I believe he has. Jwrosenzweig

Self nominations for adminship

Self-nominators, please review the qualifications above. Self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure." To be considered seriously you should have an account name that is many months old. Most voters will want to see many hundreds of edits. Anything less will be regarded as obviously unqualified.

Johnleemk (11/0/1)

I have been a Wikipedia member since September 2003 and have contributed a little over 1000 edits to the English Wikipedia since then, and one or two dozen edits on the Malay Wikipedia. I have not been involved in any edit disputes, and I believe I have sufficient understanding of Wikiquette. I am requesting adminship to assist in administering VfD and speedy deleting patent nonsense (I used to follow recent changes a lot but have been unable to do so recently due to lack of time). I understand if I am considered too new to become an admin, especially since this is a self-nomination, and will not mind if you can provide constructive comments on my manner of contributing to Wikipedia, regardless of whether you support this nomination. Johnleemk | Talk 12:54, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. OK by me - David Gerard 13:44, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. A solid, relatively long-time contributor that I believe could handle sysop duties easily. -- David Remahl 03:05, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. Lst27 03:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. I too believe in quality over quantity and your contributions definitely have quality. -JCarriker 09:01, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Qualified, has shown a good grasp of policy and etiquette. —No-One Jones 12:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. Quality over quantity. Calm and well-spoken in exchanges with other editors. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:32, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. While he doesn't quite have a comfortable quantity of edits, I trust him and I hope sysoping him can boost his contribution. ✏ Sverdrup 01:37, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. Quality over quantity, indeed. Cribcage 03:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. After consideration an review of your edits, I've decided to support. Not that it matters. You have a healthy amount of support already. Quality over quantity, I concede. I just hope you're more active in the future! blankfaze | •­• 04:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  10. Seems a good contributor, and certainly VfD needs more people willing to maintain it (IMO). Jwrosenzweig 16:09, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  11. Cecropia | Talk 19:23, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support --"DICK" CHENEY 20:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  • 1000 edits? I've only been here since April and I have almost 2000. I'm kind of wary of supporting someone with only 1000 edits if they're self-nominating. The guidelines say 500-1000 edits are necessary before people should consider your nomination seriously. It also says self-nominators should "wait until you exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure. Oppose, for now, but I am open to reconsidering. blankfaze | •­• 02:55, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I read the guidelines. However, I believe in quality, not quantity. I agree that most of my edits are inconsequential, but I have contributed to several articles. I helped bring The Beatles up to featured level. I have written non-stub articles on subjects not covered extensively in Wikipedia, such as Bandar Utama (if American towns have articles, so can any other nation) and Persekutuan Pengakap Malaysia. I created the boxes for the various Prime Ministers of Malaysia. I helped start Malaysian general election, 2004 and Malaysian general election. I also believe that given how long I've been on Wikipedia, I have been able to sufficiently understand the various policies, etc. of Wikipedia. I have actually contributed even before September last year, as an anonymous user (I wrote 95% of Education in Malaysia). Johnleemk | Talk 06:20, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. This may sound unusual, but I'm neutral only because of this user's relatively few discussions on his talk page and other talk pages. While this is probably a good sign, I feel it's important to be able to gauge how a prospective admin relates directly to other users, as well as editing articles. BCorr|Брайен 13:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

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

Danny (10/1/0), ends 05:40, 27 Jun 2004 TDC

I've been a sysop for a long time and time quite a few other things. I would like to help out whenever and wherever I can, and this seems like a good opportunity. I generally support sysophood for people, since I believe that having more sysops demystifies the idea of having sysops at all.

Support

  1. Originally I boycotted voting on this new status because I was opposed to an additional level of hierarchy within Wikipedia, but since it is now established I might as give my support to the people I respect. -- Viajero 08:31, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Secretlondon 08:43, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 09:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Fredrik | talk 09:55, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. Johnleemk | Talk 09:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. --Woggly 12:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. Mais oui, d'accord! BCorr|Брайен 12:43, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. Tεxτurε 14:37, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. Of course. —No-One Jones 18:08, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  10. 172 18:59, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  11. blankfaze | •­• 19:09, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  12. Lst27 20:30, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  13. "I generally support sysophood for people, since I believe that having more sysops demystifies the idea of having sysops at all." I very strongly agree with this statement. --"DICK" CHENEY 20:36, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Impolite. Sam [Spade] 18:11, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Danny, I know you're a very long-time and active member of the community, and I agree with your general sentiment on more sysops are better than fewer. As a bureaucrat, would you tend to use guidelines more or less the way I outlined below, or what would be your policy? Thanks! -- Cecropia | Talk 14:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig(32/0/0) ends June 24, 2004

I hate to nominate myself for things -- it always makes me worried I'm acting out of pride. But I've realized this is the sort of thing that one has to volunteer for, and risk negative commentary. I just looked over the list of bureaucrats and realized that it is generally a group of names I don't see anywhere much anymore -- therefore, in spite of the fact that we obviously have some very fine names below, I thought I might be a welcome addition. I may not seem all that active at times, but I check this page every weekday at the least, and I have several times noticed someone needed promoting and wished I could do something about it. If there are obvious reasons I would be a bad choice for this that I'm unaware of, I'd appreciate it if someone would leave me a discreet note on my talk page so that I can pull this down quietly. :-) I don't have much stomach for a fight these days, and likely won't until my arbitration ends. Oppose votes, though, are of course welcome, especially if there's something about my actions as an admin that needs correcting. Thanks for your consideration, and for reading this too-long explanation.

Support

  1. "DICK" CHENEY 19:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. RickK 19:50, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
  3. —No-One Jones 19:57, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) I would be hard-pressed to name a user better-suited to the job.
  4. Cecropia | Talk 20:33, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) Agree with Mirv.
  5. Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:37, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. Angela. 21:27, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. older≠wiser 21:56, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. David Gerard 22:06, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. moink 23:21, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  10. BCorr|Брайен 00:04, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  11. Mirv did say it best. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  12. jengod 01:29, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
  13. James F. (talk) 01:36, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  14. Cribcage 03:32, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  15. James is an extremely trustworthy and reliable contributor. →Raul654 03:57, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Zw 09:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  17. theresa knott 09:24, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  18. 172 09:40, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  19. Acegikmo1 11:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  20. john k 17:51, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  21. Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 17:55, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Warofdreams 18:09, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  23. The explanation is long enough to show he will be a good bureaucrat. :) Pfortuny 20:15, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  24. Neutrality 21:13, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  25. Of course. Isomorphic 00:34, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  26. Danny 01:42, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  27. I trust James. Muriel G 17:17, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  28. Lst27 03:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  29. Viajero 19:49, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  30. Has shown good leadership skills. It's a pleasure to receive his advice. --Uncle Ed 22:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  31. Tεxτurε 23:40, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  32. Secretlondon 01:25, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  33. pir 08:01, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  34. --Woggly 12:27, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  35. Sam [Spade] 18:11, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Warofdreams (11/1/0) ends June 24, 2004

Given that there appears to be a shortage of bureaucrats, as I'm a sysop with this page on my watchlist, and I check it most days, I'd be happy to help out.

Support

  1. Cecropia | Talk 14:23, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) "Many [responsible] hands make light work."
  2. David Gerard 14:36, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. theresa knott 14:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. I don't know WoD well, but anyone with David G and Theresa K's trust has mine. :-) Jwrosenzweig 18:11, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 01:37, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 17:57, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Neutrality 21:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. Danny 01:46, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. Lst27 03:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  10. The Undertones 22:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  11. Secretlondon 01:24, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  12. pir 08:06, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Very respectfully oppose. Warofdreams is an excellent contributor, but I very strongly disagree with the statement What I would object to is simply deciding to ignore votes against because a voter is controversial and perhaps often votes against popular candidates. Such a policy in practice would empower troublesome users such as Wik or Entmoots of Trolls. I would readily support Warofdreams if they have a change of heart. --"DICK" CHENEY 20:49, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. (was oppose) Warofdreams did not answer my questions. --"DICK" CHENEY 15:42, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You only asked them yesterday you haven't given him very long to think of an answer. theresa knott 18:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
They are good questions which got me thinking. I've now answered them at User talk:Hcheney#Bureaucratship questions. Don't hesitate if you have any more questions; I can't promise you how quickly I'll answer but I'll do it as soon as I can. Warofdreams 18:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Discussion (from User talk:Hcheney#Bureaucratship questions)

Do you support adminship being widespread and generally "no big deal" or do you feel adminship should be more exclusive?

I think that adminship is often seen as a vote of trust by the community in a user. In many cases, it encourages the newly promoted admin to do more maintainance work, particularly as they are able to delete pages (whether speedily or from vfd). This should be encouraged and spread around. I don't want to see an exclusive group of admins built up which new users feel intimidated by, and I don't think that the fairly rapid increase in the number of admins over the past year has caused problems - on the contrary, it has kept Wikipedia well maintained. Warofdreams 18:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As a bureaucrat would you give controversial user's and troll's votes equal weight to the votes of respected contributors?

I think a bureaucrat's role is to be as impartial as possible, and therefore I would treat every vote equally when deciding whether there was a consensus. Elections don't work on the principle of weighting respected citizen's votes more highly than those of dubious character, and neither should this page. Besides, almost every user on the requests for adminship page attracts enough votes that one or two users I might consider controversial or a troll cannot change a clear consensus into a split vote, or vice versa. Warofdreams 18:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I am very concerned about your idealistic, though very noble and principaled, view of voting.

Elections don't work on the principle of weighting respected citizen's votes more highly than those of dubious character, and neither should this page.

In the US state of Florida, which is the home of the Wikimedia Foundation and myself, the priviledge of voting is in fact denied to dubious characters (or at least dubious characters that happen to be convicted felons, even after release from prison). As I have said below in Cecropia's comment section, the most well qualified candidates seem to attract trolls and controversial users to their request for adminship like meat attracts flies. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has more than one or two problem users, and given the relatively low turnout for RfA elections and the mandate for 75-80% support, they could easily influence elections. Would you support allowing other bureaucrats weighing the votes of trolls and controversial users differently than that of regular users? Would you object to the arbitration committee or other approved body disenfranchising users? Would you allow political ideology to come into play in your duties as a bureaucrat? --"DICK" CHENEY 18:46, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that disenfranchising voters by an agreed procedure is an entirely different matter to asking a bureaucrat to decide how heavily to weight votes. If users try to disrupt the voting procedure, then in my opinion they should risk disenfranchisement. I also agree that there is a "grey area" for requests which achieve slightly less than 80% support, and do not object to bureaucrats following agreed policy and using their judgement in promoting users in these cases. What I would object to is simply deciding to ignore votes against because a voter is controversial and perhaps often votes against popular candidates. I don't believe that is likely to happen. I'm not sure what you mean by your last question; I would certainly not be any more or less likely to promote users on the basis of their political ideology.

I'm also quite concerned about this user's responses, as established Wikipedia policy (regarding a Beauracrat's job) says the exactly the opposite. →Raul654 18:53, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia (20/2/0) Ends June 24, 2004

I hadn't any intention of putting myself up for bureaucrat, since a bureaucrat doesn't do very much and I thought that the current people in that position were just fine. But I've noticed that some obviously successful nominations have gone days without being sysoped, and I had no idea why. Now I see—the work has been falling on just a few people. I do the dog work on Wikipedia (VfD, vandals) when I can, and would be happy to help here, too.

User "Dick Cheney" asked me a question on my user page, which I thought was a good one, about using the Bureaucrat power of promotion. With his permission, I'm repeating it below under "Discussion" with my response. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:52, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Always a polite and responsible sysop. JCarriker 06:54, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. A good choice to help out. Warofdreams 11:47, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. Calm, fair, and a good worker. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:59, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Perfect temperament, excellent dedication. Jwrosenzweig 18:11, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. —No-One Jones 19:57, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. older≠wiser 21:57, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 22:06, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. James F. (talk) 01:38, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. 172 14:50, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  10. --"DICK" CHENEY 16:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  11. john k 17:52, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  12. Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 17:58, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Neutrality 21:21, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  14. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:52, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  15. Lst27 03:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  16. VV 18:27, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  17. Hey, isn't this the guy who only got 78% of the votes for sysop? ;-) Heck, YEAH, I support! --Uncle Ed 22:11, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  18. Definitely. BCorr|Брайен 22:34, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  19. pir 08:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  20. Tεxτurε 14:45, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  21. Woggly 20:02, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Zw 09:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Kevin Baas 18:34, 2004 Jun 18 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion [from Cecropia's talk page]: Hello. I noticed your request for bureaucratship and I had a couple of quick questions I've been asking all of the recent candidates. Do you support adminship being widespread and generally "no big deal" or do you feel adminship should be more exclusive? As a bureaucrat would you give controversial user's and troll's votes equal weight to the votes of respected contributors? Best regards --"DICK" CHENEY 15:05, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to answer these questions, if only because it might help others solidify their own ideas in these areas, whether they agree with me or not, or want me for Bureaucrat or not. I agree with the general policy that adminship should be granted to a diligent contributor who appears to enjoy the general confidence of the community—that is, there is no reason to believe that person would use the "power" for mischief, and thereby promote arguments about "de-sysoping," which pretty much never happens. I don't think that the overall number of admins should be some "exclusive club," but I would like to see admin candidates express a positive interest in doing housekeeping: vandalism," VfD, and appropriately helping newcomers (or warning potential miscreants) understand the Culture and Rules of Wikipedia—in short, increase the numbers of "active," as opposing to "nominal" admins.
As a bureaucrat I would go a single step beyond the concept that a BC should ideally be a button pusher who simply carries out the will of the community, because their are certain instances where some kind of judgment must be made. So, I would not sysop someone who had less than 75% of the votes, hoping they could address the arguments against them and return later. If the user had 80% or more, I would almost always (will explain anon) make them sysops.
Only in the dicey area between 75% and 80%, if I saw that the nomination was "hanging" (at least 24 hours) for lack of a decision I would look at: the overall number of votes (3 out of 4 is much different than 30 out of 40); and read the support and objections; my life experience opinion is that a manager (bureaucrat) has to be able to make a decision and be able to defend it. I wouldn't reject "controversial" user's votes, because (a) they are still votes and (b) controversial is arguable. I would have to see what was meant by a "vandal.""troll." A true troll (and most vandals) are short-term users whose vote wouldn't count due to already-existing rules, and of course I wouldn't count them either. As I just said, in the 75-80% area, I would have to read the specific comments, and if necessary, research these comments. Of course, closeness to 80% obviously also counts. However, as a final important point (again in the 75-80% area), if I felt that I could not be neutral because the nominee was viewed as a friend or opponent of mine, I would leave the decision to another BC, and would likely confer my opinion, if any, to them. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:52, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In reality, not all users are equal and not all trolls are short-term users. Pardon my candor and use of a real example, but Wik was, at the very least, a controversial user. Should the pre-ban Wik's vote of Oppose be able to cancel out 4 respected users that vote Support? Various EntmootsOfTrolls reincarnations have been voting here after making contributions elsewhere, and like Wik, they usually oppose the most well qualified candidates. I firmly believe that the votes of controversial users and trolls should be given approximately half the weight (or less) of regular users. Maybe the arbitration committee should disenfranchise troublesome users? --"DICK" CHENEY 15:38, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree with your sentiment. I have complained about exactly that point (one POV user cancels four votes). However, I would feel bound to honor policy which appears to give Bureaucrats minimal discretion in "pushing the button." IOW, I don't see where a Bureaucrat is empowered to use broad discretion in determining consensus. I've outlined my approach above--long debates appear to show that the "gray" area is between 75% and 80%. I would certainly take the time to examine the issues, personalities and arguments put forth to come to a fair conclusion in those circumstances, because I don't feel it is right to leave a candidate "hanging" after eight full days have passed. I would be happy to join you and anyone else in a debate aimed at setting guidelines that would focus criteria for Bureaucrats to make informed decisions in determining consensus beyond simple numbers. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:16, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Raul654 (41/2/0) Ends June 24, 2004

I'd like to apply to be a bureaucrat. I've been a sysop since late last year, and I think in the time I've been here, I've established myself as trustworthy. After the position of bureaucrat was created, I was the one who wrote the polls that defined what their role is, so I'm very familiar with what a bureaucrat is supposed to do. I'm applying here because Angela has said there aren't enough bureaucrats, which (given that Angela or Kingturtle do most of the promoting) I'm inclined to agree with. →Raul654 00:26, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Fredrik (talk) 00:34, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. JCarriker 01:31, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
  3. I trust Raul ✏ Sverdrup 01:51, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jiang 01:52, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) has been a very helpful member of the community
  5. Elf | Talk 02:06, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) He's all over the place on wikipedia doing all kinds of useful things and my experience with him has been good.
  6. Acegikmo1 02:04, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. Angela. 02:33, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. Burgundavia 07:01, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC) Nothing but good interactions with Raul since I arrived
  9. Clearly not a member of the axis of evil :) Muriel G 10:11, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  10. David Gerard 11:38, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  11. Warofdreams 11:51, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  12. BCorr|Брайен 12:49, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) Definitely
  13. Itai 12:52, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) I'm familiar with the user's work. Earnestly support.
  14. Cecropia | Talk 14:21, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) Raul is always on top of things, and that's what we need for a Bureaucrat.
  15. Ilyanep 14:31, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) I have seen Raul do a lot of work...Totally support!
  16. theresa knott 14:47, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  17. Raul's level-headed arbitration of the frequently-heated discussions on FAC has always been impressive. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:11, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
  18. Jwrosenzweig 18:11, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  19. "DICK" CHENEY 19:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  20. —No-One Jones 19:57, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  21. OPPOSE! Mark needs to knuckle under and get on with his Ph.D Bah, does the world really need another Ph.D? Support. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:42, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  22. older≠wiser 21:58, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  23. jengod 01:29, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
  24. Of course. James F. (talk) 01:35, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  25. Raul's an excellent chap who deserves to be a bureaucrat. Support! DO'Neil 08:57, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
  26. Profoss 09:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  27. Of course! Raul knows his stuff. Perfect fellow for the job. - blankfaze | •­• 09:16, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  28. 172 09:40, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  29. Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 17:58, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
  30. From my brief interaction with him, he seems clear-headed, calm, and assertive. Kevin Baas 18:38, 2004 Jun 18 (UTC)
  31. We haven't met, but after looking over his work, he's a shoo-in. Neutrality 21:19, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  32. Danny 01:44, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  33. --GeneralPatton 16:28, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  34. Lst27 03:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  35. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 07:24, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)
  36. Gentgeen 07:54, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  37. Just noticed this. I fully support. Johnleemk | Talk 12:12, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  38. Raul's dedication deserves recognition, and I expect he'll serve well. However, I think this discussion is incomplete without one caveat: Raul too often assumes ill intent. Please avoid this pitfall as a bureaucrat. Cribcage 03:27, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  39. pir 08:15, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  40. --Woggly 12:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  41. Tεxτurε 14:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. This application is hereby ignored. anthony (see warning)
    • What does that mean? RickK 05:25, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • I told him one of his complaints on the FAC was frivilous and said essentially that. This is his payback. →Raul654 05:36, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. oppose because of his behaviour in regard to zionism and related pages - manipulative, dishonest and unfair person. Zw 09:04, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. Sam [Spade] 18:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC) dubious of his neutrality


Comments

To continue an interesting debate on Raul654's talk page, which I don't want to break into directly; I think that we should have clear ideas about what judgements a Bureaucrat should do (a lot, in my opinion), and then ask the current bureaucrats to try to follow them, or resign. If Angela, or any other bureaucrat thinks that this was not what he/she wanted to do, they can resign as bureaucrats, without anyone thinking less of them. ✏ Sverdrup 02:01, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The current problem is that bureaucrats aren't even making the decision to sysop someone when they have 100% support, so trying to make them make judgements about less clear cut cases isn't likely to work. The reason I said we need more bureaucrats is that although we have 13 of them, since the start of May, only two of them have been active, meaning that in some cases nominations have been left an extra three days without any action being taken. Angela. 02:33, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Other requests

Possible misuses of administrator powers

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=4208985"