Wikipedia:Administrators/Archive2
From Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia written in simple English for easy reading.
Contents |
[edit] Promoted
[edit] PullToOpen
I would like to nominate myself to be an administrator because I want to help out with all of the administrative duties. I would help close deletion discussions, keep things like Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Non clear, and take appropriate action against vandals and trolls. I would also assist in deleting the patent nonsense pages, which I see so many of now. I joined Simple in August, and have made over 1000 edits since then. In my four months here, I have learned how Simple works to get stuff done. I would love to help SE Wikipedia in ways that I could not before. Any comments will be greatly appreciated as well. :) PullToOpen Talk 18:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- strong support --Vector ^_^ (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support. Archer7 - talk 18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support The life of brian 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support, a really qualified user. --M7 19:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support he has done good for my article, and any who does that to me is great. He would make a great admin.AbbyItalia
22:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support. Great user, confident that he will excel.--Tdxiang 06:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Neutral articles were hard to understand for my niece. — This unsigned comment was added by Bobo (talk • contribs) .- Strong support - steady contributor and dedicated vandal fighter! Sometimes he is the only one holding down the fort, could definitely use him as an admin. Blockinblox - talk 03:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support Per Tdxiang. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 19:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support User seems to know their way around. Rest can be learned on the job. -- Eptalon 01:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Creol 04:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Very civil and experienced user.--TBCΦtalk? 08:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TBC
I'd like to nominate myself for adminship, as sysop tools would make it easier for me to fight against vandalism, close RfD discussions, as well as quickly delete articles that are considered patent nonsense, blatant advertising, or copyright infringement. I've been here since May, 2006 and I've accumulated over 2340 edits, mostly through cleaning up articles and reverting vandalism. I'm also a very active user on the EN wikipedia, which I've contributed to for over a year, amassing around 11,935 edits.--TBCΦtalk? 12:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support. You seem to know pretty much everything about this project, and I think you could really help out Simple as an admin. Archer7 - talk 13:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Great job with articles and civility! PullToOpen Talk 15:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support --M7 15:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support.--Tdxiang 04:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support, per all the above comments. Reminder re: RfD discussions, they are usually supposed to last 7 days, unless they are 'speedied'. Also, I just checked to see how long RfA's are supposed to last; the rule on en: is a minimum of 7 days, so I guess we should leave this RfA open until Nov. 30, and then sysop him on that date. Blockinblox 16:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Creol 07:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- strong support --Vector ^_^ (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support The life of brian 19:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support what a good editor. I don't know you but you are good user. Why not a good amin?--AbbyItalia
22:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 19:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very good editor. Deserves to be an admin. -- Eptalon 01:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Archer7 (for bureaucrat)
As stated at the Meta RfC, I do not have as much time to devote to this project as many others do, so I would prefer to have two other people as bureaucrats rather than me. However, I am willing to act as a bureaucrat for a few months or so, as we're gonna need someone and the choices are rather limited, and I have the time to perform promotions and other technical tasks. Archer7 - talk 20:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support, a good and responsible admin, can surely be trusted for this role. --M7 20:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Vector ^_^ (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Archer7 is a very responsible admin, and I trust him for this role. However, we should look to getting more premanent solutions. I do not want to do this again, in 6 months time, if possible. -- Eptalon 20:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support, good admin and I trust he will put the new tools to good use. Misza13 20:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Archer7 should do fine as a bureaucrat. Blockinblox 21:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support.--Tdxiang 03:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Angela 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support - shows the necessary abilities to serve as a good bureaucrat. - Tangotango (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I checked his contributions and I was so disappointed when I couldn't find any dirt on him. zephyr2k 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Creol 02:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support I think I can trust Archer7 that he would be a great bureaucrat on simplewiki. He doesn't have any faults and in his actions and is very civil. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 01:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support Very civil and experienced user; has done a lot of great work as an admin.--TBCΦtalk? 08:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Blockinblox (for bureaucrat)
Zephyr2k suggested on my talk page a few days ago that I run for bureaucrat. I have been an admin since last March 7. While I disdain politics, I have become convinced that we do need a couple more bureaucrats, as well as more admins on the project. I keep my eye on the RC fairly often while I do other computer work, usually anywhere between roughly 7 AM and 10 PM. Note, I have never used my admin power in any content dispute, other than with blatant vandals. I feel that if we can harness the category system usefully, we could have a lot of useful potential toward our goal as a useful "everyman's" encyclopedia. Blockinblox 21:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support - Thank you for your acceptance, M7 21:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support - Definitely should be a bureaucrat. Archer7 - talk 21:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Simple support Misza13 21:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Can handle the additional power, though same applies as ofr Archer7 (I do not want to do this again in 6 months). -- Eptalon 21:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Very strong support - GREAT! All of my dealings with Blockinblox have been very good (especially the quick admin vandalism interventions). I am absolutely certain that Blockinblox will use the even bigger set of tools responsibly. PullToOpen Talk 22:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- support --Vector ^_^ (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support.--Tdxiang 03:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support. Will be a great bureaucrat. - Tangotango (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support. Thanks for accepting additional responsibility. zephyr2k 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Creol 00:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support. ...Aurora... 13:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I hope he does a good job. But overall, he seems okay to be a bureaucrat. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 01:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support. Very responsible and civil as an admin, will do a great job being a bureaucrat.--TBCΦtalk? 08:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Not promoted
[edit] J Di
I know I've only been contributing heavily for the last nineteen days, and I saw people on WP:ST saying their minimums are three months and 1000 edits so I know my chances of this succeeding are pretty slim at this point, but this wiki doesn't have many active administrators and I'm active a lot so I'd be able to help out quite a bit. I'm an administrator on English Wikipedia, so I know about how everything works. I'm pretty good with English Wikipedia's policies, and I've read a bit of the stuff here too. Because of how active I am, I'd be able to deal with quick deletions and vandals quickly.
I'm not actually expecting this to pass, and if it doesn't, I'll understand; it seems unlikely that the community would be able to trust a user enough in less than a month to give them the administrator tools. But I'm giving it a shot, so here goes. J Di 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Notes:
- Support He is active unlike most sysop's. --Sir James Paul 22:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, but only because you haven't been here long enough, in my opinion. Three months, and I'll gladly vote support for you. PullToOpen Talk 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, I'm slightly concerned about perseverance and quality standards, but I will certainly support next time.
I also recommend putting up a user page, people tend to prefer to see no red link in sysop log actions...This user's email is already enabled and he is prompt and collaborative. --M7 23:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC) - support --Vector ^_^ (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Per PullToOpen.The life of brian 11:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose This is not about the quality of your edits alone. Stay a litlte longer, do a few more edits, and succeed. The community needs to know people to be able to trust them. -- Eptalon 14:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose You haven't been in simplewiki long enough to be an admin as PullToOpen says. I'd also recommend for you to stay here a few months more, get more edits, and be trustworthy for other users to make you a sysop. And also recent aciviy has only beagn during early December. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 15:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, still needs one or two more months of experience.--TBCΦtalk? 16:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Just because your an admin on the en doesn't mean you necessarily pass as an admin here. You need to be here longer. --AbbyItalia 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Same issues with other editors. zephyr2k 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, sadly. J Di is good, but not now. Perhaps next time.--Tdxiang 07:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose: Not particularly pleased with a few edits he has made. He probably intentionally uses the admin tools for fun and not for good purposes, like in this instance on English wiki - the merge discussion was already closed at the time, so just deliberately reverting edits using the admin tools isn't good, I think. Also in Simple wiki, I don't know what he was trying to do with this revert here. I don't think it's right to just use the popup tools for fun. I do not trust him, as I doubt a few edits have not been in good faith, and it doesn't matter if he has been in Simple wiki long enough or not. RaNdOm26 07:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't appreciate being told that my edits were probably made in bad faith. If anybody has a problem with an edit I make or something I do, I'd rather they ask me about it as soon as they notice it rather than wait for a forum where they can accuse me of bad faith actions, some of which I don't even remember doing. Administrator rollback isn't easy to stop once the button is clicked, and I have clicked it by accident a few times; it's an easy thing to do. I've even reverted a few anti-vandalism bots by accident and been warned by them. I remember the revert on en:Damien Leith, and I reverted it as quickly as I could. It was an accident, and for what it's worth, I was a bit panicky after I realised I had clicked it. As for the edit to cell wall, I don't remember making it, but it was most likely a mistake; why would I revert your edit to the next last good revision when your edit had already removed the vandalism? I'm pretty sure I was acting in good faith anyway, as I apparently warned the vandal after I made that edit. That you don't trust me is fine; I wasn't expecting many people to after nineteen days, but I wasn't expecting this at all and I'm saddened by the fact that you think I don't take my responsibilities on English Wikipedia seriously. J Di 09:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you reverted by accident, you could have said sorry when you reverted it back. That is why I do not think you use your tools well. It looked like you were just using the tools for your own pleasure. Why not next time you could use a bit of politeness, because I wasn't very happy after you used the admin tools like that. (Oh, by the way, an RfA is NOT a forum. Not sure why you said it was a forum) RaNdOm26 07:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't appreciate being told that my edits were probably made in bad faith. If anybody has a problem with an edit I make or something I do, I'd rather they ask me about it as soon as they notice it rather than wait for a forum where they can accuse me of bad faith actions, some of which I don't even remember doing. Administrator rollback isn't easy to stop once the button is clicked, and I have clicked it by accident a few times; it's an easy thing to do. I've even reverted a few anti-vandalism bots by accident and been warned by them. I remember the revert on en:Damien Leith, and I reverted it as quickly as I could. It was an accident, and for what it's worth, I was a bit panicky after I realised I had clicked it. As for the edit to cell wall, I don't remember making it, but it was most likely a mistake; why would I revert your edit to the next last good revision when your edit had already removed the vandalism? I'm pretty sure I was acting in good faith anyway, as I apparently warned the vandal after I made that edit. That you don't trust me is fine; I wasn't expecting many people to after nineteen days, but I wasn't expecting this at all and I'm saddened by the fact that you think I don't take my responsibilities on English Wikipedia seriously. J Di 09:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose: I think the user needs more time so that their editing can be analysed more accurately. I am not currently happy with some edits made on this wikipedia. My view could change if I had more edits and time to consider.Ksbrown 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Make more edits and try again in a month or 2. --Sir James Paul 03:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- So, Sir Paul, are you retracting your vote for support above? ZimZalaBim 00:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I still support him. I meant he should wait so he could get support from others. I still support him. I think that he will do a good job as a sysop.--Sir James Paul 01:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sir James Paul (2)
If elected as sysop the thing I will focus reverting vandalism. The last time I ran to be a sysop I learned a lot about policies and guidlines and since then I have spent a lot of time trying to learn them. The reason why I want to become a sysop so bad is because I think it is the best way to help wikipedia simple english because right now I have run out of ideas for articles so I will not be editing as much, I still want to help out around here so I decided to run to be a sysop. Another reason why you should vote for me is because I am friendly most of the time. Thanks.--Sir James Paul 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- ""Support""--Sir James Paul 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, for the same reasons as yesterday. PullToOpen Talk 22:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Before voting please ask me some questions. To prove that I am a hard worker and will be very active here is my user page on wikiquote siple english, I made my account late last night. http://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/User:Sir_James_Paul .--Sir James Paul 22:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, it's been a day since your last nomination; that should be reason enough to oppose. J Di 22:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Question. What makes this different to yesterday's RfA? You asked me to close it early, I did, and now it's back. Yesterday you managed 5 oppose votes in about two hours, it's not going to change today. Tdxiang's suggestion of 3 months is a very good one: you will most likely not get supports with much less than that. Archer7 - talk 22:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- AnswerIt is because I hade time to study, and get to know guidlines and policies. When i started yesterday I said things that were against wikipedia policies, and spammed peoples talk pages and that is some reasons why people opposed me. I had you close it because I wanted time to learn policies and I did so I am trying to become a sysop again. The reason why I want to be a sysop is because I am running out of ideas for articles but I still want to help. Thanks for the question sir.--Sir James Paul 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Just give me a chance and I will make you proud.--Sir James Paul 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The reason why I want to become a sysop is so I can help wikipedia, it is not for personal gain or to help me life on wikipedia. It is the best way I can help right now. --Sir James Paul 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- COMMENT Wikipedia needs more active sysop's and I promise to be a active one. --Sir James Paul 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Can't we apply WP:SNOW to this? PullToOpen Talk
- COMMENT There is a small chance I could win, very, very, small.--Sir James Paul 23:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sir James Paul
- Even though I do not have an incredible amount of edits I think I will do a great job as a sysop. The only thing I promise is to work hard. I am a quick learner so if I make a mistake I will not make it again. I have already learned a lot from this election about policies and I will learn more about them--Sir James Paul 20:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. As I said before, you're just not ready to be a sysop yet. A few more months contributing and maybe. Archer7 - talk 20:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, and second everything Archer7 said above. Blockinblox - talk 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Oppose because the user has spammed heaps of user talk pages about this nomination. He has even spammed a template (diff). I don't know if that was a mistake or an attempt to get more support from people. Either way, it hasn't worked on me, sorry mate. Also, bans and blocks are both different things, and the fact that they are both used interchangeably by the candidate makes me think that he does not know enough of the policies to be an administrator. J Di 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, per everybody else's comments. Especially the spamming of talk pages. PullToOpen Talk 21:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I am a very quick learner. I did not know I was spamming talk pages and will not make that mistake again. I have already become familar with the blocking policies. Even though I will probably lose this will help me in the future, I have already learned a lot. As a sysop if I need help I will ask another sysop.--Sir James Paul 21:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Enthusiastic, but much to learn. History at other wiki projects shows the same (en:Wikipedia and en:Wikiquote) ZimZalaBim 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Netoholic (current bureaucrat, vote to reinstate privileges)
This vote is necessary to find out if the only active bureaucrat on simple.wikipedia has the necessary consensus to keep his status or should be removed. Prior to this vote, Netoholic has been put on request for comments on meta and then the Stewards have been reported about the current situation. Other active administrators have also been asked to candidate themselves for bureaucrat position. --M7 18:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Except some brief delays in promotion, I have performed as a bureaucrat with no complaints until M7 has decided to persue this campaign against me after I made a judgement call and chose not to promote User:Tdxiang. These sorts of judgement calls happen occassionally, and should not be used to attack the person put in the position of making that call. It is equally likely that I might have promoted, but had people complain about that or that decision be regretted. -- Netoholic @ 18:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Update: Netoholic has now been desysopped by a steward (see Wikipedia talk:Administrators. This vote will now determine whether these are to be reinstated. Archer7 - talk 23:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is little chance of people reconfirming me since this trouble is all so recent. Reconfirmation of sysops is a bad idea because that job attract criticism over time. Apparently, my removal is the reward for putting over two years of hard admin and bureacrat work into this wiki - that it all can be shattered in the matter of one week. So, to all you ambitious ones, enjoy it while it lasts. I would suggest staying away from making bold, hard decisions, as you will end up being punished for them. -- Netoholic @ 23:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Update: Netoholic has now been desysopped by a steward (see Wikipedia talk:Administrators. This vote will now determine whether these are to be reinstated. Archer7 - talk 23:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- OK, tomorrow will make it a week since this vote has been opened. Does anyone think this vote should carry on, get some more opinions, or just close it? Archer7 - talk 15:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Vote Log
(support removal/oppose removal/remove bureaucrat status/neutral)
(5/1/3/2)
- Support - I see no reason why Netoholic should lose their status. -- Eptalon 18:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Remove - Those still having doubts can see this --M7 18:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Remove from bureaucrat only this page: request for comments and this: reported is the reason --Vector ^_^ (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- M7 isn't a Troll, and THIS?? --Vector ^_^ (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - lol, such a tiny wiki and already has a wheel war. :) Misza13 18:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Remove - my reasons stated on the Meta RfC. Archer7 - talk 19:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Remove - Alright, Neto, this has gone too far. M7 is NOT a troll. I request for him to be unblocked immediately, because that was completely unacceptable. I am sad that it has come to this... PullToOpen Talk 20:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Change vote to Neutral. I have decided that I want to stay out of this vote. I don't want any blood on my hands. PullToOpen Talk 00:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support removal after reading said meta RfC. Misza13 20:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I remain neutral. On this issue about the veto placed on me. It is therefore up to the new bureaucrats' decision to op me.--Tdxiang 03:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Remove, per my comments on the RFC and the recent developments. - Tangotango (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. Simple WP wouldn't have been better off if Netoholic had taken a wikibreak at the peak of the conflict until the issues die out. But he stayed on with the project and continued with his responsibilities to clean up the site despite this. However, the block on M7 is unjustified and constitutes an abuse of power whichever way you look at it. Thus, I cannot give him a 'keep', but at the same time, cannot give a 'remove'. zephyr2k 23:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sysop only. ...Aurora... 13:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Remove bureaucrat and adminstrator access. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 01:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Remove from being a bureaucrat, but not as an admin --TBCΦtalk? 20:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)