Here you can make a request for adminship. See Wikipedia:Administrators for what this entails and for a list of current admins.
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 and created a variety of articles over that time without often getting into conflicts with other users.
If you want to nominate yourself to become an administrator, it is recommended that you wait until you have been a user for a reasonable period of time - long enough to show yourself to be 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 will make it so and record that fact at Wikipedia:Recently created admins.
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 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
Roadrunner
User:Roadrunner has made about 5000 edits, most of good quality. His contributions list registers his first edit on Apr 2002. Though this may not be accurate due to the glitch, I pretty sure he's been here longer than I have. --Jiang 22:07, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- support. Greenmountainboy 17:38, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Support, copious contributor. (Maybe nominations should be switched to the top of this page so they'd be more noticeable.) - Hephaestos 04:13, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- (Moved nominations as you suggest, though NB have no opinion for or against User:Roadrunner -- Trainspotter 15:31, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC))
- nth. Can't believe a longtime contributor still haven't been promoted to sysop.大将军, 都督中外诸军事 (talk) 00:02, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Tuf-Kat
Requests for adminship
Please add new requests to the top
Pumpie
I would like to nominate for becoming a sysop, if you want to or not, find it right here.
- Moved from nominations to requests for adminship. - Mark 15:49, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Pumpie was overwhelmingly rejected less than a month ago:[1]. Pumpie - you should wait for someone else to nominate you (which will, I suspect, take a long time), rather than nominating yourself. -- Finlay McWalter 17:10, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Green Mountain
I have been here for more than a month and have a couple of thousand 1178 edits. I would like to become a sysop so I can better serve Wikipedia. Thanks! Green Mountain 03:43, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Are you Alexandros? Oppose for now.See my comment below. silsor 03:50, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)- He's not. First, Alexandros and he have talked on Greenmountainboy's talk page. Second, by looking at "their" pages, they are interested in very different subjects. Third, their edit styles are completely different - greenmountainboy makes 10 edits in a row to an article, while Alexandros makes one or two substantive ones. --Raul654 13:09, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- You have 1178 edits, not a couple of thousand. -- Tim Starling 03:56, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Support, 1178 is enough and this user hasn't done anything bad. --Jiang 04:02, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Jiang that 1178 is a good number. I only had 950 or so when I applied, but my tendancy is to write new articles, not make minor spelling corrections. However, with that said, I think that there should always be a honeymoon period of a at least a couple months before making someone an admin. 6 months might be a bit high (4-5 is more typical), but 2-3 is a bare minimum. Furthermore, some people have raised questions about the sincerity of this application. I say that he should wait another month or two before reapplying --Raul654 13:09, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, like his previous ten applications. He should not be made admin before he admits his deceptions and then waits no less than six months. If he continues to pull this nonsense to force himself into adminship he should be banned. --Wik 04:03, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
- This very application contains two lies: besides what Tim said about the number of edits, he is also here for less than a month. So it would have to be rejected on formal grounds alone, even if the fact that he's Alexandros weren't so obvious (and the identity is as clear and easily demonstrable as that of Lir and Pizza Puzzle). --Wik 04:32, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
- If you accuse Greenmountainboy of lying, please provide irrefutable proof of your claims. The point about the number of edits may have been an error. If you doubt Greenmountainboy's identity, please demonstrate why.Kosebamse 15:08, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Support. From my experience, Green Mountain Boy has been a good contributor. - Mark 04:12, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Defer. Above in the guideline it says some months, aren't we going to stick to it? Dori | Talk 04:47, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Support Lirath Q. Pynnor
- I have reasons to believe that "Greenmountainboy" is the same person as his brother (Aplank). To clear up any confusion, would he please state unequivocally whether he is or is not the same person as User:Alexandros/Aplank. This will not change how I intend to vote, however I would like an honest answer. Maximus Rex 13:21, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Support. GM has made decent changes here. --Merovingian 13:47, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Defer. No earlier than 6 months. It still needs to be cleared up whether or not greenmountainboy is alexandros/aplank. --snoyes 17:21, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- For those who missed it, Greenmountain's legend about Alex's whereabouts changed smoothly from "Alex is at our grandparent's house. They don't have a computer though." to "I think he is taking a break from wikipedia for a while. (busy with exams etc.)" Now I guess he decided to take that break while still at the grandparents' house, or immediately on returning, since he didn't make a single edit in between. Wouldn't it be a tad more likely that, on returning from the grandparents, he would at least once have gone on Wikipedia and made some edits before taking a break for the exams? (How likely is it anyway that two brothers share one computer?) Furthermore, Greenmountain first applied for adminship on December 14, and was told he needed to be here a lot longer, yet he applied again on January 8. Isn't this pattern familiar? How likely is it that two brothers are equally obsessive about getting adminship? Moreover, both "brothers" have demonstrated an interest in the Mother Teresa article, with Greenmountain taking over right after Alex promised to leave the article alone. Both GM's earlier application and Alex's included a claim that they "get along with everyone" and both seemed to be based on the misconception that adminship is given simply on the basis of edit count. Their language and behaviour is generally indistinguishable (the poor brothers both have Asperger's, it would seem). They have also worked on similar articles, mainly about abolitionists and Civil War related topics. --Wik 17:55, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Alexandros has always been ~alex@va-chrvlle-cad1-bdgrp1-4d-120.chvlva.adelphia.net on IRC. From Dec. 19 to Dec. 28, greenmountain on IRC was ~alex@va-chrvlle-cad1-bdgrp1-4d-120.chvlva.adelphia.net. Since Dec. 31, greenmountain has been ~greenmoun@va-chrvlle-cad1-bdgrp1-4d-120.chvlva.adelphia.net. silsor 18:28, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Firstly, Greenmountainboy requested adminship on here 5 days after making his first edit. He also nominated someone else (Timwi) on the same day. Hardly something someone who was unfamiliar with wikipedia would do. Secondly, Greenmountainboy has the same habit as Alexandros/Aplank has/had: Supporting just about every other person who requests adminship. --snoyes 18:57, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Alex left, Green showed up. I was uncertain until this occurred on IRC a coupled of days ago, whether they were the same person. Maximus Rex 19:10, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- There has been other strangeness on irc from greenmountain Archivist 19:50, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
- This is in response to Wik:
- Wouldn't it be a tad more likely that, on returning from the grandparents, he would at least once have gone on Wikipedia and made some edits before taking a break for the exams?
- Why would he do that? Maybe he decided to take the break while he was away, so he didn't come back when he regained access to a computer. How would we know?
- The whole thing about the break is absurd. As obsessive as he was, he wouldn't take any break. And if he absolutely had to, he would keep it as short as possible. So he would not directly add it to the period he was already forced off when he was at the grandparents (which, in fact, of course, he never was). --Wik 04:09, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
- (How likely is it anyway that two brothers share one computer?)
- Why couldn't they? My whole family shared one computer until fairly recently. Adam Bishop 03:16, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Then probably most of your family didn't do much with it. But here both "brothers" seem to be experts. Incidentally, if you check their talk pages you'll see how they messaged each other; one time they had a direct exchange (on GM's first application). If they were sitting at the same computer why couldn't they just talk to each other? --Wik 04:09, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
- I would very worried about someone being made a sysop after only a month. It would be too easy to set up sysop sock puppet accounts. Please wait at least a couple months more. Angela. 18:43, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. To satisfy my curiosity, I made a list of every line aplank ever said on IRC, and a list of every line greenmountainboy ever said on IRC. Then I read through both of them for a while. I think they are the same. They talk and act exactly the same, on Wikipedia as well as the IRC channel. I don't want him to be a sysop if he feels the need to deceive anybody else in order to do so; see my comments re: his (if it is him) "obsession" (my word) in the last four or five nominations. silsor 03:07, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Nov 21 17:54:10 <aplank> Lir: you have to get a new account and pertend to be someone else.
- Nov 21 17:54:28 <aplank> Lir: then in 2 months, you will probably be made an admin.
- As for all the time it took you to look at your IRC logs i will quote Charles Edwin Carruthers. "In judging others, folks will work overtime for no pay." Green Mountain 02:01, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Biting. silsor 03:07, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
- As for all the time it took you to look at your IRC logs i will quote Charles Edwin Carruthers. "In judging others, folks will work overtime for no pay." Green Mountain 02:01, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, at least for now. I don't know or especially care who he is. But his hostile message on Village Pump, in which he extends his current problem with not instantly being made a sysop into a deterioration of Wikipedia from the good old days (31 days ago, when his user page was created) shows the need at least for a cooling-down period. Application should perhaps be renewed in a couple of months (at least). Dandrake 02:10, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
- I just want to say that I am not the same person as my brother. You should assume good faith and look at Principle Of First Trust and Iterated Prisoners Dilemma. Green Mountain 19:18, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, since de-sysoping someone is so rare, we'd rather assume you're bad and make you prove otherwise. We do this by making sure you are here a reasonable amount of time. So please, don't take it personally if someone votes against you becoming a sysop - it is just a statement that we don't really trust you yet - we haven't known you long enough. Be patient, and re-request it again after you've been here a while longer. And most of all - be honest, because that's the first character trait we look for in a potential sysop --Raul654 22:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps we just need a better de-sysopping policy then so we don't need to be so wary about making people sysops in the first place. Currently, even where a majority feel someone should be desysopped, there is no process for making that happen. Angela. 21:08, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Uh, isn't that what a "nomination for de-adminship" (further down this page) is? --Raul654 00:17, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- No. That section is for nothing. Try it. List someone there. Nothing will happen! Until we have a policy, it's a bit pointless to have such a section as no one knows what to do about the votes once they've been made. Angela. 01:38, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
- I would think that we would need Jimbo's intervention to carry out one of these de-adminships before it becomes tradition. Green Mountain 00:21, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. We don't require Jimbo to create sysops, so why should we require him to desysop people? I see no reason why this can't be a community decision in exactly the same way creating sysops is. Angela. 01:38, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Administrators indicates that there are six former administrators. Have any of them been removed against their own will? -- Lord Emsworth 01:57, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. We don't require Jimbo to create sysops, so why should we require him to desysop people? I see no reason why this can't be a community decision in exactly the same way creating sysops is. Angela. 01:38, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Uh, isn't that what a "nomination for de-adminship" (further down this page) is? --Raul654 00:17, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps we just need a better de-sysopping policy then so we don't need to be so wary about making people sysops in the first place. Currently, even where a majority feel someone should be desysopped, there is no process for making that happen. Angela. 21:08, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, since de-sysoping someone is so rare, we'd rather assume you're bad and make you prove otherwise. We do this by making sure you are here a reasonable amount of time. So please, don't take it personally if someone votes against you becoming a sysop - it is just a statement that we don't really trust you yet - we haven't known you long enough. Be patient, and re-request it again after you've been here a while longer. And most of all - be honest, because that's the first character trait we look for in a potential sysop --Raul654 22:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Lord Emsworth
- As I have seen that 1000 is considered "a good number of edits" here, I think that I may ask for the administratorship. From my count, I have approximately 2700 contributions, all since last August. Thank you for your consideration of the matter.
- Support, dedicated contributor, work is extensive --Jiang 01:29, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Support, frequently appears in my watchlist :) -- Arwel 02:06, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Support, a large body of solid work. (But still no Worshipful Company of Thieves?) -- Smerdis of Tlön 02:44, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Green Mountain 03:47, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Lord Emsworth is the sort of contributor we need more of here at Wikipedia. - Mark 04:12, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Support Secretlondon 13:56, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Support Hemanshu 17:25, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Support enthusiastically. FearÉIREANN 01:10, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Support. With Best Wishes for Peace Profound, ... Optim 02:15, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC) ...
- Support. The good earl is tireless and unfailingly polite. john 02:18, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Made good edits in Wikibooks, as far as I remember. Κσυπ Cyp 02:41, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Imran
- Been here for a while (technically I've been around since pre-Wikipedia but have been a regular contributor for a shorter time) made a few changes. Adminship would be handy for dealing with vandalism.
- Support Tuf-Kat 03:08, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Support Secretlondon 17:19, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Support Hemanshu 17:26, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Support. ... Optim 03:09, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC) ...
LouI
- I had hoped to make this request in 2003, but after 1000 contributions. I'm only just over 900, but I've decided to ask anyway. My only excuse is that a number of these have been longer biographies or articles that required research. Thanks for your consideration. Lou I 16:57, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Support!!!!!!! Greenmountainboy 17:39, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Support. It is 2003, where I live at least... --Jiang
- It was 2003 everywhere when he applied. greenmountainboy (talk) 15:54, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Also support. Does great stuff. - Hephaestos 23:00, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Caltrop
- Support.
- A basic statement of intention/credentials? --Jiang 22:07, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- My quick, unofficial count shows about 1450 contributions since June 5, 2002. I'll support --Raul654 01:34, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I geuss I will too. Support. Green Mountain 22:59, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Support Hemanshu 17:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Jiang that something more than the person just listing their name here is needed. Angela. 21:08, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
Requests and nominations for de-adminship
If you're requesting your own de-adminship, you can do so private communication with a developer, should you wish to do so. If you're requesting de-adminship of someone else, you can do so here, but please first try to discuss the issue directly with the admin in question.
Note that there are alternatives to removing sysop privileges: a "clarification" or "request" from Jimbo is more likely than something so drastic.
The Cunctator
- The discussion previously listed here is still active as of 4th December 2003 11am UTC. However I have moved it to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Cunctator due to the length of this page and the fact the discussion had drifted away from the primary purpose of this page, which is about granting people sysopship. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:51, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)