Template:Communitypage

Note: A closely related vote is going on at meta:Developer access - if the vote is approved, the chosen users will share the non-technical responsibilities and authority presently held by Brion Vibber, Tim Starling, and the other developers. Nominate your favorite colleague today, and don't forget to vote!

Here you can make a request for adminship. See Wikipedia:Administrators for what this entails and 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.

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.

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 Wikipedia:Recently created admins and Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats.

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

Hcheney; (11/5/2) ends 04:31, Mar 29, 2004

Hcheney has made almost a 1000 edits and I observed him helping get rid of POV in an economics article. And since there seems to be such a problem with vandalism these days Wikipedia needs as many good administrators as it can get. I think he would be an excellent contribution to Wikipedia. GrazingshipIV 04:31, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination, I am flattered that I would be nominated so early (I started editing at wikipedia in December, 2003). I definetly have a soft spot in my heart for wikipedia, but unfortunately cannot edit as much as I would like due to a busy schedule. As an admin, I would only use the power to fight vandalism, or in accord with consensus or established admin practice. I would never, under any circumstance, use admin powers to protect/unprotect a page that I was editing or debating. If the community supports my nomination, I will graciously accept. --Hcheney 05:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. GrazingshipIV 04:37, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
2. 172 13:40, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) (Strongly)
3. 3 months (to the day, I believe), 850 edits, a positive attitude in the face of vandals -- excellent admin material! I'm afraid I don't understand the objections and wholeheartedly agree with 172's assessment of Hcheney. Jwrosenzweig 18:37, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Support. I've seen some of his work. —Morven 20:35, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
5. Support. I had less experience than HCheney when I self-nominated, and I've noticed his efforts around the site. Even if I don't like the last name... ;) Meelar 22:18, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
6. BCorr¤Брайен 22:39, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC) Because of the comments, I spent quite a bit of time reviewing Hcheney's edits -- especially on talk pages -- and I'm convinced that he will make a good administrator. He makes his case clearly, seems open to other points of view, and has worked to reach agreement on talk pages before editing the articles.
7. Support. ugen64 23:38, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
   1. Note: I believe the above IP is User:ugen64 -- I have asked him to verify this. If he does not verify the above vote, it is anonymous and therefore invalid. Jwrosenzweig 23:30, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      1. Yeppers. ugen64 23:38, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
8. Perl 23:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
9. Tuf-Kat 01:17, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
10. Quinwound 01:46, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
11. Fennec 01:52, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Has only been here two months. Nothing against Hcheney, but think he needs seasoning. RickK | Talk 04:39, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
   • I'll vouch for it - he's ready. In the beginning, the very nature of an edit war on Wikipedia seemed to be catching him off guard, from my vantage point. But now he's been very well vetted. Surviving the rough and tumble, law of the jungle world on Wikipedia toughens a user up, while breeding tolerance at the same time. Hcheney is a civil voice of reason; and he's been have a better time figuring out how to work around incivility lately. In fact, I can refer to a handful of pages where he's provided insightful advice vis-a-vis policy and adminiship decisions. Also, keep in mind that this ringing support is coming from someone who's had a rough edit war with him. My support should be considered a strong example of the good will that he's capable of eliciting. 172 13:42, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Oppose - both the nominator and nominated are too new. Maybe try later. - Texture 05:55, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. Oppose - nomination by a 13-day-old user is dubious. --Wik 20:22, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
   • If it is any consolation I have used Wikipedia for years. I would hope you would base your vote on the merit of the candidate rather than myself.-GrazingshipIV 20:36, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
     • It just gets more dubious. Used for years and only thought to edit 13 days ago? A likely story. --Wik 20:43, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
       • No I got a user name 13 days ago. And once more your missing the point your not voting against me, your voting against someone else. If this is still dubious for you try to imagine that someone else (maybe one of the other three who are currently voting for him) nominated him. Also we are having a discussion about this issue on the talk page perhaps thats a better place to voice your opposition to someone so "new" engaging in the nominating process. -GrazingshipIV 20:57, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

   Oppose based on points made by Texture and Wik. →Raul654 20:23, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

   • I guess I have to admit, I'm confused. Hcheney has been here 3 months. A number of admins have been nominated with less experience than that. The fact that the nomination came from someone new is unusual but not unheard of -- I get the sense that many of the oppose votes are coming from people who haven't worked with Hcheney and just are suspicious that this might be his sock puppet or something. As someone who has interacted with him, I am very sure this isn't a sock puppet nomination, and hope that people will judge this candidate based on his own merits, and not on who nominated him. Sorry to start an argument (and I promise, I won't post on this again), but I'm really baffled by the arguments being used to deny Hcheney adminship. Surely you can take my and 172's supports of the nomination as indications that experienced editors here would have nominated Hcheney had they not been beaten to it? Jwrosenzweig 20:29, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
     • "Experienced editors" have supported Alex Plank too, when he used sockpuppets in an attempt to cheat himself into adminship. Enough said. --Wik 20:43, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
       • Ah, it's Wik. If it makes you feel any better, Grazingship already has more than 100 edits to pages besides his user and talk pages. He pretty much wrote all of The Conservative Order by himself, and regarding Cheney, he's meaningfully edited here longer than I have. ugen64 23:38, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
         • So? Alex did thousands of edits with various sockpuppets. And a user who plays tricks like that shouldn't become sysop, so we should wait until we can rule this possibility out. --Wik 23:53, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
           • Wik, why do you force others to do work for you? All right, fine, as you could have determined had you visited the contributions of Hcheney and Grazingship, on the 22nd of March, Grazingship made edits at 22:14, 22:15, and 22:19; Hcheney made an edit at 22:18. Is this sufficient evidence for you? Jwrosenzweig 23:58, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. Did some more checking -- they both made edits at 20:57 on March 22. Jwrosenzweig 23:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
             • That's precisely what I checked too, and the congruence of times is evidence for the sockpuppet thesis, not against. If two users were making edits at widely different times it could prove that they are indeed different people, because one person would be unlikely to edit at all those times. For example, if the combined edits of two users span a period of 24 hours without any interruption longer than 3 hours, you can conclude that it would be difficult for one person alone to do. That's why I suggest we wait another month, and then analyze the edits again for a more conclusive picture. --Wik 00:48, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
               • Okay, I'm going to give up convincing you, Wik, but I think this is ludicrous. Any two users who happen to live in the same or adjacent time zones might easily follow the same pattern of behavior. I cannot understand why you have chosen Hcheney and Grazingship out to be "guilty until proven innocent". After all, if I had proven that they never edited at the same time, wouldn't you have also called that suspicious? We could claim any two users "might possibly be sock puppets" and it would be difficult to defend against that claim given the logic you are using. I wish you were a little more trusting. Jwrosenzweig 00:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
                 • I'm not calling anyone guilty. I'm just saying we can't make a judgement yet. If they never edited at the same time it wouldn't necessarily be suspicious, it depends on the specific pattern. And no, you can't claim any two users might be sock puppets. For almost all combinations of two different users you should be able to find an editing period that proves that they are distinct, as I explained above. --Wik 01:11, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
               • So many asterisks... anyway, through my statistical experience, it's very likely that two people will edit at similar times by chance. You also spelled judgment wrong. Finally, I don't understand your reasoning. Alexandros made a couple of questionable decisions, and he should have known better. However, Hcheney has shown himself to be cool and understanding, and whether or not Grazingship is a sockpuppet (which is pretty much impossible), that's not the issue here. The issue is whether Hcheney would make a good administrator. ugen64 01:53, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
                 • Of course, they will sometimes edit at similar times. And sometimes at different times. But so far the times are all similar, so we should wait another month. Also, judgement is a correct variant of judgment. Finally, it is not all impossible that Grazingship is a sockpuppet, and if he is, then Hcheney cannot be trusted, and therefore would not make a good administrator. --Wik 02:32, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

   Oppose. Too early. Going neutral instead Dori | Talk 20:10, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

   See my response to User:RickK above. 172 13:40, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

4. Oppose. <joke>No one good ever came from new jersey.</joke> Anthony DiPierro 00:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
5. IMHO, not yet enough experience. I don't yet think H Cheney has enough edits (under 1000) to justify adminship yet. I use number of edits as one of the gauges. I feel that one should have over 2500 edits before being considered for admin. That gives a much larger sampling to know the user. I might very well support him at a later date. Kingturtle 02:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

1. Dori | Talk 20:10, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
2. In that case, I'm going back to neutral. →Raul654 20:31, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Bearcat (3/0), ends 14:44, 28 Mar, 2004 (UTC)

Bearcat has been here since October 3, 2003 and has made 1370+ edits. He is an excellent contributor, especially on articles regarding Canada and Canadian culture. -- Rdash 14:46, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Wow. Insert gushing Sally Field "you really like me!" acceptance speech here. *grin* Yeah, I accept the nomination. Bearcat 23:23, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Rdash
2. Meelar 01:02, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. Quinwound 01:44, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Pollinator (8/0) ends 21:52, 27 March 2004 UTC

Has been here since September 2003, and made about 2600 edits. Good articles on pollination-related topics (surprised?). More trusted admins is never a bad thing. Meelar 21:52, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Meelar. I accept the nomination. Pollinator 01:19, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Meelar
2. Maximus Rex 02:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. Danny 10:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Perl 21:47, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
5. Hephaestos|§ 04:37, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
6. BCorr¤Брайен 16:30, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
7. Well deserving: I saw the name and thought instantly "why didn't I think of nominating Pollinator?!" Jwrosenzweig 16:51, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. RadicalBender 19:12, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hajor (6/0), ends 21:17, 27 March 2004 UTC

Hajor has been a solid contributor since September 2003, with 1,224 edits in the main Wikipedia namespace as of 12 March [1]. He has done a lot of valuable work on Mexico and other Latin American topics as well as helping out in various other corners of Wikipedia, such as Current Events. I think he would make a fine admin. -- Viajero 21:17, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination, Viajero, and for the kind words. If the community support is there, I'll be pleased to (humbly) accept. I look forward to having a less cumbersome way of reverting the odd vandal and to taking my involvement in this project to the next level. –Hajor 00:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Viajero 21:19, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Tuf-Kat 09:41, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
3. Danny 10:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Infrogmation 04:53, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
5. 172 (Strongly) Totally concur with Viajero's comments above. 172 13:46, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
6. RadicalBender 19:12, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chris Roy, (6/0), ends 19:56, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chris has a wonderful attention to detail (many many edits correcting tedious spelling errors) and is a dedicated member of the welcoming community. With 2,600+ edits since early November 2003, I think he's a devoted enough contributor here to make him well worth adminship. Jwrosenzweig 19:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Jwrosenzweig, for nominating me! This comes as a surprise, since I contribute content only occasionally, tending instead to edit from the standpoint of a "harmless drudge", as Samuel Johnson put it. I revert vandalism when I come across it; I suppose being an admin would make this particular task easier, but I cannot really imagine using my powers for much else for the moment. I accept my nomination. Chris Roy 20:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Jwrosenzweig 19:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Woodrow 22:09, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC) - The fact that he accepted 20 minutes after nomination shows how watchful he is.
3. Kingturtle 21:27, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Meelar 21:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
5. Danny 10:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
6. --Hcheney 23:40, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lupo, (2/0/0); ends 16:20, 25 Mar 2004

Lupo has been here since Dec 03 with 1300 edits. I've seen him do unhealthily large amounts of Wikipedia housework. I have complete faith that he would be an excellent admin. Ludraman | Talk 16:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination, which I'll accept gladly. It'd be a honor, and might make some housekeeping sometimes a bit easier. BTW, I also write articles... Lupo 08:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Ludraman | Talk 16:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Perl

Moncrief, (16/0/1); ends 7:00, 24 Mar 2004

I noticed that Moncrief had been spotting vandalism and having to manually revert, calling out for admins. He's made about 2600 edits, and been here since December. I think he'd make a fine admin, and we need all the anti-vandal help we can get. Meelar 07:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I accept the nomination, and I thank you for nominating me. I am very committed to the Wikipedia project, and I have thoroughly enjoyed my participation here. I think I'd be a very careful and fair admin - and, you're right, it seems that I catch vandals in the act on almost a daily basis and it's been frustrating not being able to do much about it. Anyway, thank you. If you have any questions of me, please ask. I will say that I have been on Wikipedia every day since I first started editing here in December, and I think that I have generally been on at hours when there are relatively few admins about - so it might be good to have my pair of eyes helping out too. Moncrief 07:37, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. An excellent choice! -- Hadal 07:31, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Good choice. jengod 01:00, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
3. Support. Elf-friend 01:52, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. support. Perl 02:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
5. Good choice. RickK | Talk 03:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
6. Support. Decumanus 03:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
7. Support. Uncle Ed 14:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. Michael Snow 17:54, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
9. Excellent choice. Jwrosenzweig 20:00, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
10. Danny 10:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
11. Arwel 23:13, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
12. Hephaestos|§ 04:37, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
13. RadicalBender 19:12, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
14. Support. I'm getting tired of cleaning up his speedy deletes today.  :) moink 20:32, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
15. Woodrow 21:33, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
16. --Hcheney 23:40, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

1. He's a great worker, but I'd wait another month. I'd support him then. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 07:46, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Dale Arnett, (13/0); ends 23:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A busy bee since October 2003. Responsible user, who communicates well with others. Kingturtle 23:06, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If the community will accept me, I'll gladly accept. I may be active only in spurts, since I'm currently a law student, but I've come to enjoy playing my part, small though it may be, in this community. I should have more time over the summer break, since I don't plan on taking any classes then. Dale Arnett 01:36, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Kingturtle 23:06, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Wikipedia 23:14, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. Hcheney 23:25, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Thought he already was one. jengod 23:58, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
5. Has been an excellent contributor in sports articles. RadicalBender 02:23, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
6. Hadal 07:31, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
7. Merovingian ↕ Talk 07:47, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
8. BCorr¤Брайен 13:42, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
9. If this is what he does working "only in spurts", his contributions put most of us to shame. Michael Snow 17:54, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
10. Minesweeper 02:12, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
11. Danny 10:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
12. Thought he already was one. Seems to have similar interests to me! Arwel 23:13, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
13. Very productive, good choice. - Hephaestos|§ 00:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Mic, (6/0); ends 23:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User since December 2002. Level-headed. Cares about maintenance and about fairness. Kingturtle 23:06, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination, and thank you for supporting it. I accept the nomination and I will accept exercising its responsibilities. I'm not able to tell whether this will impact in any significant way on my participation here, but there are situations were it would be useful and get things done that otherwise wouldn't. -- Mic 21:36, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Kingturtle 23:06, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Hadal 07:31, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. Ruhrjung 14:54, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC) [long record of good wikispirit)
4. Tuf-Kat 21:03, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC) (could've sworn I already voted for him...)
5. Danny 10:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
6. Cimon avaro 22:18, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC) Called me a vandal during my first days of Wikipedia, because my text-based browser messed up the umlauts in Christina of Sweden, so it gives me a special pleasure to support him for sysop ;-)

Oppose:

Please add new requests to the top

Please add new requests to the top

See m:Interwiki requests for adminship.

• See Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions and Wikipedia:Possible misuses of admin privileges