Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
CryptoDerk (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
10,493 edits
Orthogonal (talk | contribs)
2,330 edits
Line 29: Line 29:
# STRONGEST SUPPORT EVER. More than 7,000 edits and 300 articles to his name in less than three months. One of the best contributors to come through Wikipedia in a while. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User talk:blankfaze|<small>(&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)</small>]] 02:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# STRONGEST SUPPORT EVER. More than 7,000 edits and 300 articles to his name in less than three months. One of the best contributors to come through Wikipedia in a while. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User talk:blankfaze|<small>(&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)</small>]] 02:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# Edit history looks good. Talked with him, too. I support. [[User:CryptoDerk|CryptoDerk]] 02:30, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
# Edit history looks good. Talked with him, too. I support. [[User:CryptoDerk|CryptoDerk]] 02:30, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
# Definitely. To the extent that Wikipedia is a soap opera, what better man to document it. For those not getting the joke, Mike has tirelessly documented almost the entire US soap opera sub-culture, and to a great extent, has done so with succumbing to the temptation to "break-out" irrelevances that we see in [[Pokémon|some other]] [[Star Wars|popular culture subjects]]. [[User:Orthogonal|-- orthogonal]] 02:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose:'''
'''Oppose:'''


Revision as of 02:30, 31 August 2004

Shortcut

Requests for adminship (not to be confused with requests for arbitration at WP:RFAr) is a page to nominate yourself or others to become a Wikipedia administrator, also known as "sysop". Admins have access to a few technical features that help with Wikipedia maintenance. Please see the reading list and how-to guide before applying here. For current admins, see the list of administrators; for users who were recently made administrators, see recently created admins.

Rules

Administrator status is granted to known and trusted members of the community who are familiar with Wikipedia policies. Administrators have no special authority on Wikipedia, but are held to higher standards. Because admins have been confirmed by the community as trusted editors, they are perceived by many, particularly new, users as the official face of Wikipedia. Therefore they should take care to be courteous, exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with other users. Nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities before adminship will be granted. Most new administrators have at least three to four months of participation and more than 1000 edits. You can nominate yourself, but the number and quality of your contributions may be scrutinised more closely if you do this so it is advisable to exceed usual expectations before doing so.

If you wish to nominate someone, get their permission and then give reasons on this page as to why they would make a good administrator. Nominations will remain for seven days so the community can vote and comment on the application. Bureaucrats may choose to extend this where the consensus is unclear. Nominations which are clearly not going to gain sufficient support may be removed earlier to prevent the discussion causing ill feelings, which can make it more difficult for the nominee to seek adminship later. However, keep in mind that most editors don't visit Wikipedia daily, so a reasonable amount of time should be allowed. Some people believe all nominations should be allowed to run their course, and disagree with having them removed early. If your nomination is rejected, perhaps because you are too new or inexperienced, please wait a reasonable period of time before applying again.

Vote in the appropriate lists and optionally add a short comment. Don't discuss other people's votes in the vote list itself. If you want to comment on other people's votes or comments, please do that in the Comments section below every nomination.

Please note that anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or vote.

Current nominations

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.

Current time is 06:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

TheCustomOfLife (aka Mike H) (1/0/0) Ends 02:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mike is an invaluable contributor with more than 7,000 edits and 300 articles started in the ~3 months he's been here. He is very good natured, and contributes well to the community in general. We would all benefit from his being an administrator. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:20, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

Thanks! Neutrality was going to nominate me, but I don't know where he went. I'll accept the nomination. Mike H 02:21, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Of course. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:20, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
  2. STRONGEST SUPPORT EVER. More than 7,000 edits and 300 articles to his name in less than three months. One of the best contributors to come through Wikipedia in a while. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Edit history looks good. Talked with him, too. I support. CryptoDerk 02:30, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Definitely. To the extent that Wikipedia is a soap opera, what better man to document it. For those not getting the joke, Mike has tirelessly documented almost the entire US soap opera sub-culture, and to a great extent, has done so with succumbing to the temptation to "break-out" irrelevances that we see in some other popular culture subjects. -- orthogonal 02:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

I had a failed nomination attempt in the first part of July. I rejected the nomination, but it was evident it wasn't going to pass anyway. Someone took it down but I asked HCheney to reinstitute it so I could formally reject the nomination. You can see the attempt here. Mike H 02:22, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Frazzydee (16/0/0) Ends 06:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Frazzydee has been an active member of Wikipedia since 7 November 2003. He has made 1,906 edits as of August 22, 2004. I think Frazzydee should become an admin because of his diligence in pursuing candidates for speedy deletion, vandalism and possible copyright violations. He interacts well with other users, and has gotten much praise from other members of the community. Being an admin would speed up Frazzydee's ability to deal with vandalism and candidates for speedy deletion, he has already shown judgment and diligence in pursuing these issues. -Flockmeal 06:31, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thank-you very much. I gladly accept your nomination. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✎]] 06:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please note that I do not have 1,906 edits. I have 1,505 edits as of now. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 23:39, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Flockmeal 06:36, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  2. A very mature and responsible editor. Just gave me his advice on adding a new picture to Church, in fact. Strongly support. --Slowking Man 07:31, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Mike H 07:32, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  4. ffirehorse 07:41, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Merovingian✍Talk 14:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  6. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) After seeing your work with speedy delete candidates, I support.
  7. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:52, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. 172 20:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. Very responsible editor. Known him since the age of 5. Wholly deserving. Yelyos 20:59, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Lots of good work on reverting vandalism, cleaning up pages. CryptoDerk 21:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Guanaco 23:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. GeneralPatton 00:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. Pizzahunks 16:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) I think he would be a great asset to Wikipedia as an admin. He connects well with people and is willing to help.
  15. Tεxτurε 16:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  16. Oh boy, I was about to nominate him. :) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:33, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

I just took a peek at my contributions list to see how many edits I made, and I realized that a mistake was made. My contributions list shows that I have made 1492 edits as of this writing. Of course, I will notify everybody who has voted about this unfortunate error. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 23:19, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep in mind that you probably have more, due to speedies. Yelyos 23:21, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Siroxo (26/0/0) Ends 20:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Siroxo has, at this writing, 2347 contributions since 16 May 2004. Siroxo has done some nice work on articles as well as showing interest in a variety of housekeeping and policy issues, so I think he would be a very appropriate choice for adminship. I think he shows good judgment and tries to deal calmly with contentious issues; for example, his suggestions on Talk:Affirmative action recently helped that often controversial page get unprotected again. --Michael Snow 20:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, nomination accepted. [[User:Siroxo|Here is a schmancy new signature and a line of text that is long enough to show how it might look when there is some stuff coming before it. Please take a look at it to bask it in all of its radiant glory

—siroχo

—siroχo 



#627562



#7b967b

#4d6c94]] 20:33, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Michael Snow 20:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Agreement. Mike H 20:25, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oh yes.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 20:36, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  4. BCorr|Брайен 20:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. squash 22:06, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) Also help voted to support for proposition on template images. Also overall I think would be an very good admin.
  6. —No-One Jones 22:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. Jwrosenzweig 22:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) Another fine nomination of Michael's -- Siroxo is a very good editor, and has the right skills to succeed as an admin.
  8. RickK 23:05, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) Definitely!
  9. Certainly. SWAdair | Talk 03:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. Andre 03:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. Geogre 03:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) A steady guy who follows his convictions without failing to listen and consider. Geogre 03:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  12. Johnleemk | Talk 11:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. James F. (talk) 13:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. Very responsible editor. Strong support. • Benc • 18:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  15. Noisy 18:38, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  16. Support! - Lucky 6.9 07:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  17. PFHLai 09:42, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
  18. ffirehorse 01:23, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  19. -- orthogonal 07:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  20. David Cannon 09:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC). I didn't vote immediately because I didn't know this user. Now that I've checked him out, I like what I see. He is definitely admin material.
  21. JFW | T@lk 13:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) Good work
  22. Merovingian✍Talk 14:15, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  23. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:53, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  24. 172 20:52, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  25. GeneralPatton 00:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  26. Tεxτurε 16:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

  1. Contributions

Rossami (35/1/1) Ends 05:11, 31 August 2004 (UTC)

Rossami has made over 3900 contributions starting 2 Apr 2003. Has shown interest in issues related to adminship, such as deletion policy, and done particularly good work writing up the mechanics of the deletion process (a page Rossami created). In my observation, Rossami consistently tries to remain polite and works to resolve conflict as calmly as possible. I think Rossami has earned our trust and the community would benefit from having this fine contributor as an admin. --Michael Snow 05:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. I accept the nomination. Rossami 15:07, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Michael Snow 05:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Cyrius|✎ 05:45, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Strong support. Was planning on nominating myself once the stats page showed a few more edits. Clearly understands the deletion policy, and will follow it with a more literal interpretation, instead of the more liberal interpretation of some admins. Also unprovokable, and a firm believer in hearing both sides of an issue before taking a stand. Niteowlneils 11:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Mike H 12:13, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Merovingian✍Talk 12:58, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  6. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:58, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. Andre 18:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:00, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. • Benc • 21:01, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. Mike J. 21:14, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. How did we miss this one for so long? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 08:41, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)
  12. Ruhrjung 20:30, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC) (Not a day too early.)
  13. Of course. Everyking 20:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. Jwrosenzweig 22:10, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  15. SWAdair | Talk 07:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  16. What Meelar said. Johnleemk | Talk 18:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  17. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 20:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  18. BCorr|Брайен 20:52, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  19. Tuf-Kat 08:06, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  20. Rhymeless 08:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  21. Pcb21| Pete 14:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC). Excellent work on VfD.
  22. Geogre 01:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) Rossami has a laudable and appropriate attention to the fine points of policy. See comments for the reason for my support.
  23. Satori 01:52, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
  24. Chris 73 Talk 08:01, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
  25. David Cannon 10:27, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC).
  26. Sewing - talk 13:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC). Mainly because he is playing devil's advocate on VfD these days.
  27. Support, based on Rossami's argument for giving articles time to grow on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sty. -- orthogonal 07:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  28. ffirehorse 07:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  29. ugen64 19:52, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  30. 172 20:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  31. Guanaco 21:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  32. David Remahl 21:54, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  33. Theresa Knott (The token star) 23:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  34. Austin Hair 00:11, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  35. GeneralPatton 00:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. I'm changing my vote. I had initially voted Support, but Rossami's recent contributions to VfD in which he feels that any and all garbage is worth keeping on Wikipedia calls into question his fitness for sysophood. RickK 19:14, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  2. I have to go in the Oppose section since Rossami has not addressed RickK's comment or the comments of supporters who agree with the sentiment. I'd like to see some explanation. Where are the usual questions asked of the admin candidate? - Tεxτurε 16:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Currently discussing RickK's original question and my view related to it on my talk page. - Tεxτurε 21:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Rick, do you mind citing sources on this? I'd be interested in this as a grounds for a possible vote change if I deem it necessary. Mike H 19:16, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ditto. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The change of vote seems to have been precipitated by a disagreement over Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sty. --Michael Snow 20:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't like the decision Rossami has taken but I won't remove my support vote. Checks and balances and somesuch. Mike H 20:05, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree with Rossami here, but we all make mistakes. I'll keep my support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I had also been taken aback by Rossami's comments in that VfD discussion, but voted to support anyway. In the balance of things, I think he is and will continue to be a definite asset to the Wikipedia. SWAdair | Talk 03:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Every time I have ever been on the other side from Rossami, he has had the law on his side. This is a good thing. The problem is with the interpretation of law and how narrowly it is done. I never have had an occasion to do anything but respect him. He reasons well and truly. So long as he recognizes that interpretation is involved, that the spirit of the law is to leave room for interpretation, I don't have a problem. I hope his rectitude never leads him to the madness of intolerance or scolding. I feel confident, though, because Rossami does the most important thing an admin can do: he listens. That's why, even though I had churlish words for him on that VfD, I have no hesitation in supporting him. Geogre 01:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If the Sty discussion is the evidence, I don't see a problem. He had a well-reasoned and well-presented argument, based on current policy. If the wikigods would only let such civil discourse prevail in every dispute.... Satori 01:52, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. He has never, ever, ever, been contentious that I've seen. Geogre 23:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Self nominations for adminship

Self-nominators, please review the qualifications above. Many editors feel that self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure," have an account name that is many months old and have many hundreds of edits. This is not to say that self-nominators are necessarily any less qualified than "sponsored" nominations; however, many editors use their knowledge of the nominator as a "jumping off" point for considering nominees, and it is human nature to be more skeptical of those asking for a position than those being proposed by others. If you self-nominate, a good solid background is therefore very important.



Requests for bureaucratship

Bureaucrats are simply users with the ability to make other people admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats.

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

Other requests

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=5555868

Leave a Reply