Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Newbie questions

1. How does one know if another user is an administrator? (For instance, is Denni an administrator?
2. What counts as a "good enough" reason to nominate someone for adminship? Is a solid record of good edits and sound judgement good enough, or would one have to point to a particular reason the user needs adminship privileges?
3. Is there a quick way to find out when a user first started posting, and how many edits they've contributed? (other than going back all the way on "User contributions" and actually counting).

Thanks!--Woggly 11:34, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello. Looking at Wikipedia:Administrators, you can find most of your answers there very comprehensively. Still, here are some short answers:

1. There is a special page named Special:Listadmins that list all sysop-marked accounts. Also, Wikipedia:List of administrators lists administrators.'
2. On the Administrators page, you can read the Jimbo Wales quote, "There should be no big deal". Actually, even though we have lots of sysops, I think we need even more, and there is really no big deal.
3. No, there are some smart tricks with modifying the Contributions url, to use custom offsets to count the edits, but other than that there is no tally of edits or other user statistics to be found.

✏ Sverdrup 11:49, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I think I'll lurk a little more before nominating anyone, because I'm chicken. But for what it's worth, I think Denni should be nominated. --Woggly 12:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lst27

I'm a little troubled by the widespread opposition to this nomination. I agree there have been some serious problems with this user's conduct on RfA in the past, but I'm concerned that people aren't giving a fair chance of reform. He has been more reasonable about his administratorship nominees, and I see little to no evidence that he would aggressively edit war. Adminship is a big deal to him, clearly, but I see no reason to think that this is out of anything that would lead to abuses. It seems like adminship is being viewed as a social validation. Which, in a lot of ways, it is - a recognition that someone has been a long-standing good contributor.

Is there anything that this user could do that would cause some of those opposing him to change their vote next time this comes up? Snowspinner 21:54, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Snowspinner -- I don't know that we should carry out a long discussion here, but the fact is that I am sceptical (and I believe many others are too) about this user's denials about being User:AlexPlank / User:Perl / User:Greenmountainboy / User:Alexandros et al. Assuming I am correct, then this user has not reformed, and ought not be an admin, IMHO. It will be a while before I feel that it would appropriate in this case. In the past, many have given him the benefit of the doubt repeatedly, to the point of his being made an admin on Meta, and to me that was a mistake. However, whether I am correct or not about Lst27's identity, I don't believe that this represents a trend of not giving formerly problematic users a fair chance of reform. I appreciate your concerns, but I believe that this is a very specific situation, and will not apply to other candidates for adminship. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 22:07, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Showing more evidence of necessary social clue, or less evidence of an appalling lack. I fear that's something that's not really optional in an admin - David Gerard 22:44, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Snowspinner. I would expect to see the same thing from Lst27 as from anyone else. He would have to satisfy my objective criteria, and he would have to live down his recent string of faux paux, particularly: his inappropriate nominations of others and himself for adminship, his removal ("refactoring") of comments from his own vote, his citing of his trivially minor editing record at es: in support of his nomination. I would not support him until I see a string of contributions exemplifying understanding of the community and acceptance of community decisions and mores, occuring at regular intervals over a period of several months. I would also expect that he be nominated by someone besides himself, preferably a well-respected member of the community.

Ill-advised admin promotions do indeed have the potential to cause trouble, even though individual actions are reversible. The stress the community suffers in dealing with ill-considered actions is considerable. I am not interested in giving Lst27 "a chance" or concocting some sort of "special short-term subject-to-review-after-three-months" adminship alternative for him, because I think both of these are bad policy, and if he is indeed given adminship for a time only to have it revoked, he'll be even more upset than he is now. While I believe WP needs more admins, and am in favor of granting adminship liberally, it is not worth taking a chance on someone whose record is unclear.

I am not especially concerned about Lst27's alleged socks, though User:Perl and User:Greenmountainboy have rather less than stellar track records, as I recall.

Finally, adminship is not a right, not a badge of prestige, and not something we bestow based on tenure alone. He may well be disappointed that he does not qualify at present, and I can sympathize, but granting adminship out of sympathy in order to boost a contributor's morale is possibly among the worst reasons imaginable.

So, if Lst27 should wish to become an admin, here's my advice. Edit. Do good works. Nominate no one for adminship. Patrol recent changes, take on a wikiproject, and add reasoned discourse to the discussions on talk pages, on policy pages, on VfD. Demonstrate that you don't care about the score: don't count your edits, don't count your time here, don't behave as though your a sailor in the last month of his five year tour. Bide. And after a while, probably six months or so, someone will nominate Lst27 for adminship, and we all will be prepared to forget about the matters that are so clearly in mind today.

UninvitedCompany 23:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Request for adminship candidacy support - JediMaster16

Hi, my handle is JediMaster16, and I wish to become nominated to become an admin, if possible. I have made several article contributions to Wikipeda (including numerous edits), especially improving Star Wars related articles. The recommended amount of edits for a sysop on your nominations page was at least one hundred or more. I have about 124 edits to my name.

As an admin I would help contribute to Wikipedia by having powers to deal with vandalism. I believe that I could be effective in ensuring that Wikipedia's rules were held up to the highest degree that they can be.

I know that you do not take adminship lightly - you are granting a user special privileges that should not be abused or misused. If accepted, I would take my privileges as an administrative user and use them to the full benefit of Wikipedia and its community.

JediMaster16 02:55, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

First, you shouldn't be making this request on the talk page, you need to make it Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Second, I suggest you wait - no offense, but you are very, very, very underqualified. You should have (at the very least) another 700 edits to your name, and you need to wait (at least) another month. Third, these are just the numerical standards - people are going to want to know how you act with other users and how you handle conflict. →Raul654 03:00, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Image

This page needs a janitorial image: a large shiny bunch of keys looking really cool ... and the mop and bucket which are the reason for the keys. Do we have any on the site? If not, I'll see what I can come up with - David Gerard 15:47, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And one of those "Wet Floor" signs. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:56, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. blankfaze | •• | ••

I carry my camera with me everywhere - I'll see if one of the cleaners at work can help ;-) though if anyone else can do it faster, feel free! Don't forget to make the keys really shiny - David Gerard 18:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can confirm he does carry a camera ... whether he ever shows anyone the photographs though is another matter ;-) --VampWillow 20:04, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)