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

Mkweise; (2/0)

Mkweise has been here since August 2003 and has about 900 edits. He has done a lot of good work and communicates well with others. I think he would make an excellent administrator. Cautious 22:48, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Cautious 22:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Seaman 22:56, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

DJ Clayworth; (9/0) ends 14:54, 31 Mar 2004

DJ Clayworth has been here since July 2003 and has about 3,900 edits. He has done a lot of good work and communicates well with others. I think he would make an excellent administrator. Maximus Rex 14:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Maximus Rex 14:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Rdash | Talk 15:20, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
3. Adam Bishop 15:21, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Excellent choice. (As usual, "I thought he was one already!") Jwrosenzweig 16:34, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
5. moink 17:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
6. Excellent choice. Angela. 18:53, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
7. Stewart Adcock 20:58, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. Meelar 21:55, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
9. jengod 01:02, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hcheney; (15/9/2) 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)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Hcheney for more information

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)
12. Mdchachi 19:50, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
13. Moncrief 08:26, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
14. Support. I don't like what's been happening on this page. I'm not sure I trust the nominator, but I think Hcheney is being unfairly penalized by the actions of someone who I am now 99.98% sure is not Hcheney. Hcheney himself seems to have a good record of contributions.moink 17:56, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
15. sannse (talk) 18:14, 24 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)
   • (further replies to Jwr's comment moved to Talk: Talk moved from Hcheney on VfA. +sj+)
   • 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)
   • • My vote was real, and the count was incorrect. (by the way, I'm from new jersey) Anthony DiPierro 01:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) [this was in response to GrazingshipIV, full convo is on the talk page]
   • If I can unite you and Wik, I would probably make a pretty good admin. --Hcheney 01:23, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
     • Wik and I have been united on a number of issues before. In this case, I'm just not convinced (that you would make a good admin). Anthony DiPierro 01:30, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
   • After looking at the evidence, it seems clear that even if cheney and grazingship are not the same person that they know each other. I think that's something that should have been pointed out up front. Also, Cheney has gone on to troll on my website, for instance adding an entry "Natalie Paff is a short, fat, slut from Media, Pennsylvania. She has herpes and is a pathological liar." So what was originally a weak oppose for now has now solidified into a definite oppose for now and the foreseeable future. anthony 21:37, 24 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)
   • Not to burst your bubble or anything, but I am nowhere near 2500 edits, and I have been an administrator for three months. ugen64 22:49, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
     • Wik: You are one to talk about sock puppets. You still will not admit that you are J-DoeAWAY. I changed my name because I like privacy, and I have never asked for adminship with this account. I am already an admin on wikibooks and a bureaucrat on Maori Wikipedia and I have never abused my powers. Regardless, when asked about my identity this time, I answered truthfully and made it clear that my name is Alex Plank. Perl 23:34, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
6. I would be much happier if this were tried again in a few weeks to a month. The slightly unusual circumstances surrounding the nomination and the subsequent fight over this page cast what is likely unnecessary doubt over Hcheney. I am still confused by exactly what is going on. Perhaps Hcheney will remove this nomination, to prevent any lingering shadow of doubt from tainting his adminship.Maximus Rex 15:17, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
7. Maximus put it well. 172's and Jwr's comments are well-taken; no point in having a cloud hang over one's adminship. Try again in another month... +sj+ 18:57, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)
8. Ruhrjung 21:51, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) (All the arguments given already.)
9. I oppose, not because Hcheney is necessarily unqualified, but because the unfortunate dispute casts a cloud over this vote, whatever the result. I agree with Maximus - Hcheney would be better off using admin powers if he becomes a sysop under another nomination. Would one of his supporters please renominate him in a week or two? I know it's not "fair" to require this, but I think it's in our best interests. --Michael Snow 22:16, 24 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 (7/0), 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)
4. Gladly. Hadal 18:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
5. Adam Bishop 23:52, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
6. SimonP 21:57, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I dont like Sally Field because of Legally Blonde 2. Just kidding. Perl 01:13, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support

Pollinator (15/0) 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)
9. Michael Snow 07:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
10. FirmLittleFluffyThing 11:24, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
11. Gaz 11:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
12. Hadal 18:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
13. jengod 21:52, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
14. Support. Angela. 00:21, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
15. GrazingshipIV 17:36, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hajor (9/0), ends 21:17, 27 March 2004 UTC

Hajor has been a solid contributor since September 2003, with 1,224 edits 2,535 (hjr + hajor) 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)
7. I concur. Hadal 18:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. jengod 21:53, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
9. GrazingshipIV 04:09, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Chris Roy, (7/0), 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)
7. Hadal 18:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. Support. Angela. 00:21, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Lupo, (3/1/0); 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
3. Gladly. A communicative and attentive editor. Hadal 18:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. GrazingshipIV 17:37, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. +sj+ 18:37, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC) Perhaps in another month. I'm not comfortable with the short number of actual articles and the small # of people (despite my respect for Hadal) who can vouch for Lupo.

Please add new requests to the top

Perl

I'm an admin on Wikibooks and a bureaucrat on Maori and I've never abused my powers. I have contributed to wikipedia for many months and have only gotten into one conflict (Mother Teresa) (and that was in the first 2 months I think) Since then, I have proven myself with consistently good edits. In the past, I used multiple accounts (and this isn't against any polices) in order to stop being attacked by other users. This is a Wik free request. That means that Wik is prohibited from participating in the vote. I don't want another insult session. (Also, opposition based on my use of multiple accounts will be removed as there is nothing against the rules with using more than one account and many users do so without telling others about the accounts. Perl 01:41, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cautious (2/10/1) ends 20:39, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would use the admin priviliges to resolve edit wars concerning Polish-German relations. As we know from politics, sometimes socialists are better to introduce liberal reforms, then liberals. The main reason is, they don't have an opposition from the left. Accordingly, the adminship rights would force me to become NPOV and therefore help me to resolve issues with other POV users. Other advantage of this move would come from the fact that I have German predecessors that suffered in the times of WW2, but I am a Pole. I know the versions from both sides. I also fluently read German and Russian. Cautious 20:39, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. I believe him. Give him a chance. Seaman 22:55, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
   • Hmmm... Seaman's contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Seaman -- BCorr¤Брайен 01:09, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
     • As I noted earlier, Cautious has what amount to an army of sockpuppets, and he uses them for voting, agreeing with himself, and other inappropriate activities. Maximus Rex 01:14, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. support Perl 01:15, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Oppose. Has used sock puppets on several occassions, using them to agree with himself and to double or triple vote on vfd. Reasons for wanting adminship are not valid. Being an admin will not solve POV disputes. Maximus Rex 20:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
   • Nevertheless we are in complete shambles in all articles touching German-Polish relations. There is a need for revolution. I can be a Lenin of it. Adminship reached the street. Cautious 20:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Oppose. My limited knowledge of Cautious's activities does not inspire much trust in me, and the rationale behind the request makes me even more convinced that Cautious would use adminship for political purposes. Adminship doesn't force biased users to become NPOV: you have to demonstrate a committment to NPOV before you can be an admin. Jwrosenzweig 20:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
   • I am not biased. I was driven into edit wars, becasue of the current lack of working mechanism of achieving historical truth. Cautious 20:55, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
     • Also the term historical truth frightens me. moink 21:02, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
       • I meant sticking to facts and care about details. Currently generic articles prevail and there is no attempt to retireve, what has really happenned. Cautious 21:16, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I just went through his contributions. While he seems to be more balanced than some other contributors on the Polish/German questions, he is not as NPOV and polite as I believe we custodians have a responsibility to be. His reasons are suspect to me; I believe instead of having adminship force him into NPOV, he has to demonstrate an ability to be NPOV before applying to be a custodian. moink 20:57, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
   • I continue. Mitterand lost 3 times before being elected. Being defeated and don't give up it is a victory. Cautious 21:16, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
4. Oppose - you say you will "use the admin priviliges to resolve edit wars concerning Polish-German relations". It sounds like you want this to resolve conflicts in articles you are actively participating in. Since that is a violation of the admin guidelines it indicates you would abuse the priviliges. - Texture 21:21, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
   • This means that I would stop to participate in the edit wars. I understand the requirenments for admin. Cautious 21:26, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
5. Oppose. the edits I've seen have made me feel this user is not community-minded enough for adminship at this point. Not to mention the "responses" to each vote right here... BCorr?Брайен 21:32, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
6. Strongly Oppose. By the sounds of it you will use terms like historical truth to protect articles that you are in disputes with. Quinwound 21:34, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
   • I understand, that you just confirm my impression, that historical articles on Wikipedia are the synthesis of the bias of all of its editors? You seem to declare the bankrupcy of wikipedia as encyclopedia, at least history encyclopedia? As far as I am concerned, there is no scientific history without the tendency to reach the historical truth. Maybe you are right: we are going towards next Dark Ages and wikipedia is yet again mean of introducing pseudoscience and populate it to the level it exceeds the level of science? Cautious 22:17, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
7. We may need more sysops to help resolve the Polish-German disputes, but that doesn't mean we should just promote the combatants to admin. Although I don't consider Cautious a serious offender (unlike others I've seen), I'm concerned about his request. Adminship will not "make" anyone abide by NPOV if they don't do so already. --Michael Snow 22:17, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. Strongly oppose. He is very difficult to deal with, and some of his actions is bordering on regular vandalism and trolling (Rumia and others), he recently also listed a couple of organizations he does not like (Landsmannschaft Schlesien and others) on VfD. Nico 22:26, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
9. Absolutely not. This user is a prepetual participant in edit wars. →Raul654 22:27, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
10. Oppose. silsor 01:07, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Fennec 01:44, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

1. I would love to support User:Cautious, not the least if that could improve the articles on Polish history. However, I think he first needs to prove his capability to express other POVs than his own.--Ruhrjung 21:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
   • Bravo! Nevertheless, how can I express other POV? Probably you meant, take into account? Cautious 22:11, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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