Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Neutrality (talk | contribs) at 03:35, 15 July 2004 (→[] (4/5/1) Ends 14:22, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:35, 15 July 2004 by Neutrality (talk | contribs) (→[] (4/5/1) Ends 14:22, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut
  • ]

This page is where the Misplaced Pages community considers requests made for a Wikipedian to become an administrator. In addition to requests for adminship, the page is also used for requests to become a bureaucrat. (If you came to this page using the shortcut WP:RFA and were looking for Misplaced Pages:requests for arbitration, please use the shortcut WP:RFAr instead.)


Please see the poll at talk
concerning renominations and self-nominations


Admins, also sometimes called sysops, are users with access to a few technical features that help with Misplaced Pages maintenance. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators for a more detailed discussion of what this entails. The administrators' reading list is a good preparation before you become an admin. Consider reading this before applying for adminship. New sysops can learn how to use their new features at the Administrators' how-to guide.

Bureaucrats are simply users with the ability to make other people admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. For lists of users who currently have these abilities, see Misplaced Pages:List of administrators and Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats.

Procedures and guidelines

A user may be nominated to become an administrator by someone else, or the user may make the request personally. The nomination is posted on this page for 7 calendar days measured from the time of nomination. During this period, members of the community may comment on the nomination and vote to support or oppose it. At the end of the 7-day period, if there is general community support for the nomination, a bureaucrat will make the nominee an admin and record this fact at Misplaced Pages:Recently created admins. The process for bureaucrats is similar, but is generally by request only; new bureaucrats are recorded at Misplaced Pages:Recently created bureaucrats.

Nomination. Many users become administrators by being nominated by another user. If you wish to nominate someone, get permission from them first. Along with the nomination, please give some reasons as to why you think this person would make a good administrator. (The nominator may also vote to support the nomination.)
Self-nomination. If you wish to become an administrator, you can ask someone to nominate you, or you can make the request yourself. Be aware that some people scrutinize self-nominations more closely, because they don't already have a community member vouching for them; as a result, you may want to wait until you are sure that you exceed the usual guidelines.
Anonymous users. Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or support or oppose nominations. The absolute minimum requirement to be involved with adminship matters is to have a username in the system.

Qualifications for adminship

Current Misplaced Pages policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Misplaced Pages 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.

Administrators have no special authority when interacting with other users, but because they have additional abilities, other people will generally expect them to be courteous and exercise good judgment. Wikipedians are more likely to support candidates with enough experience to evaluate these qualities and determine whether the candidate is familiar with Misplaced Pages policies. Many people consider the length of time a user has been contributing, as well as the number and quality of contributions.

There are no definite requirements on this, but most users seem to expect three to four months of participation and 500-1000 edits before they will seriously consider a nomination. Some users apply higher or lower requirements on a personal basis, which they are entitled to do in voting on this page.

Unsupported nominations

In some cases, a candidate will have general support but a smaller group opposing the nomination, and it may be unclear whether a consensus exists to grant adminship. If the bureaucrats are uncertain about whether there is a consensus in a particular case, they may suggest that the vote continue beyond seven days, thus giving more time to see if a consensus will develop.

If your nomination fails, it is not necessarily a permanent rejection — the community may just be suggesting that you "try again later." However, please wait a reasonable period of time before renewing a request, and make good use of the time to gain additional experience.

If a candidate is obviously unqualified (for example, has been participating for one month and made fewer than 100 edits), the nomination may be removed before the seven-day period is over. Similarly, if the candidate was rejected very recently or the voting makes it obvious that the nomination has no chance of success, it may be removed before voting is complete. Past experience has shown that continuing the discussion in these cases only fosters ill feelings, and makes it more difficult if the nominee seeks adminship later.

Nomination notice


Please see new information concerning Quadell's restored nomination.


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 21:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Chocolateboy (4/5/1) Ends 14:22, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Has done excellent work from what I can see. I'm rather surprised he isn't an admin yet — he's doing excellent work maintaining Misplaced Pages, and adding stuff while he's at it. Was nominated in April but refused; I'm hoping he accepts now. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User has made 1356 edits. Johnleemk | Talk 14:27, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Candidate has not yet accepted this nomination

Support

  1. Support, of course! I wanted to nominate him for adminship almost three months ago! --Lst27 23:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. I've read over the contretemps (see below). It seems irrelevant to the question of whether chocolateboy will misuse admin privileges. Cyan 17:39, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support, sorry to disagree with some others whose opinions I generally respect. Yes, discussions with Chocolateboy have gotten heated in the past, even over seemingly pointless trivia and yes, his tone can be agressive. But he takes the time to argue his cases in talk pages, without reverting to name calling or what I would call verbal abuse - and in my opinion he brings up strong and good arguments. Ultimately, he has also stepped down on issues such as the Miss Kitty Fantastico "chocolate box" link. He is passionate, but in my judgement based on what I've read of his heated interactions, he does not let his passion carry him past the red lines, and he is capable of compromise. He strikes me also as intelligent and pedantic in the good sense. I see nothing in his behaviour that leads me to believe he will abuse his administrative powers, and I've seen several current administrators who are more argumentative and agressive than this user. Woggly 06:16, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. What Cyan said. moink 21:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. What they both said. C'mon! Sysops get in edit wars all the time; as long as they don't abuse their power, I'm fine with it. (BTW, who the hell is Kitty Fantastico?)

Oppose

  1. Too few edits IMO, will possibly support after 2000. blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:34, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. His ridiculous edit war at Miss Kitty Fantastico and abusive posts when questioned about it show he is not admin material. RickK 05:28, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Having read the rant, I can't support elevating him to admin, and feel compelled to act in opposition. (Was that humorless enough?)- UtherSRG 12:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. But can we put the Miss Kitty Fantastico edit war on lamest edit wars ever? Snowspinner 17:13, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • I definitely think so, and I've added it to the list. --Michael Snow 18:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Cribcage 14:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Acegikmo1 15:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC). I'm going to refrain from voting until some disputes are resolved.
    Could you elaborate on how that discussion bears on the nomination? i.e., what does it suggest to you about the nominee? -- Cecropia | Talk 16:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    It is a discussion about a Misplaced Pages policy. User:Chocolateboy is a principal contributor. In my view, if and how the dispute is eventually settled could indicate the user's potential competence and style in dealing with disputes as an administrator. As of now, however, I can't infer too much, which is why I am currently neutral. Acegikmo1 16:42, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    To the best of my understanding, the issue was settled. User:Chocolateboy stepped down, which to my mind shows an ultimately mature attitude. (See Talk:Miss Kitty Fantastico). --Woggly 08:40, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    But see Misplaced Pages talk:Principle of least astonishment for his most recent frothing. RickK 21:49, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
    Erm ... all I see there is you and him disagreeing on something. That's hardly a disqualification. He seems to comport himself okay now, actually - David Gerard 22:37, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comment

  1. Are you the same user as User:Chocolate bar? You have a similar username and discussion pattern. Angela. 22:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
A.
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Misplaced Pages up to date?
A.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Misplaced Pages been? (Perhaps reverting a bad stretch of vandalism, doing extensive work categorizing articles, helping mediate a dispute, or proposing policy?)
A.
6. Of your Misplaced Pages edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
A.

User:Plato (3/25/4) Ends 20:06, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Part of Red Faction group. Barnstar Award. Anyone that is an admirer of King Umberto II, Karl Marx, and Cicero, and enjoys Vermeer paintings can't be all that bad! Nominated but not signed by User:IndigoGenius. Please sign your nominations. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I accept your nomination and thank you!--Plato 01:25, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. IndigoGenius 00:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Guanaco 00:46, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) But I don't know why this is being tried again.
  3. Lirath Q. Pynnor A superb user!

Oppose

  1. Heh. Adam Bishop 00:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Request disciplinary action against nominator. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 00:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Anyone who starts his own cabal while complaining about cabalism can be all that bad. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:43, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 01:02, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Unless Plato is an admirer of Groucho, Zeppo, or Chico, I could not in good conscience vote for a Marx admirer. Plato is also a known associate of troll/vandal Lir. --H. CHENEY 01:05, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I do love Marx brothers movies.
      • OK - dump the Red Faction crap, Karl Marx, and Lir... and I will nominate you myself after three months of good behavior and quality editing. --H. CHENEY 02:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. Stop associating with all this Red Faction BS, and you could really be a good user. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. The fact that he continues to accept spurious nominations gives me little faith that he's even begun to understand how Misplaced Pages works. Oppose. Snowspinner 01:50, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Graham ☺ | Talk 02:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Also agree with Fennec's request for disciplinary action against nominator. 172 03:11, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  10. Agree with the above comments and concur with Fennec's and 172's request. Neutrality 03:13, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  11. EddEdmondson 04:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  12. Bryan 04:11, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  13. Guanaco is becoming more and more bizarre. What he's doing in this company, I don't know. Oppose, of course. Ban all of them. RickK 04:42, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
    Ban all of who? theresa knott 10:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    See the section labeled "Support". - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 12:30, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    You're not seriously proposing that people be banned because of the way they have voted? theresa knott 23:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Of course he is. He could probably find some reason to ban you as well. Guanaco 23:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    I suppose asking you all to stop bickering would be an exercise in futility? Snowspinner 00:00, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
  14. David Cannon 05:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC). Oppose.
  15. theresa knott 10:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  16. --GeneralPatton 13:18, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  17. -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:33, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  18. UtherSRG 17:39, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) *cough* troll *cough*
  19. Knock off the nonsense and focus on helping to create an encyclopedia. In a few months, I'll support. Cribcage 17:55, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  20. Oppose, for now. However, if Plato became a better contributor in future, I might reconsider. -- The Anome 18:19, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  21. Don't do this, Lir. --Merovingian✍Talk 19:47, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Lst27 21:14, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  23. Arwel 00:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  24. I don't believe I voted in previous editions of this nomination, but since someone apparently needs it made utterly clear... the answer is no. Plato seems like a decent guy, but he needs to demonstrate better judgement. Isomorphic 07:06, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  25. BCorr|Брайен 15:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) . Ton. Ynnuf yrev ah ah ah.

Neutral

  1. Danny 05:04, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) Personally, I think that this is a potentially excellent contributor and one day will be a fine admin. Just get past the Red Faction bullshit and continue contributing to the articles.
  2. I agree. Red Faction is so dumb. It's very sixth grade. Mike H 17:42, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Danny and Blankfaze said it well. If he disbanded the Red Faction, I'd change my vote to support. —No-One Jones 00:08, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Coming soon: the Green Faction - David Gerard 00:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    :-P No, I think Craig has dibs on that one. —No-One Jones 00:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    I'm all for plaid, myself. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 14:17, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. Not a bad contributor from what I have seen. I do not understand why he would want the position considering his distaste for what seems to be much of current wikipedia policy. There also is some question of the nominator. I suggest user:plato try again when he agrees more with wikipedia's goals or the policies that he opposes (and will most likely not enforce as an admin) are changed. Arminius 23:16, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments

FYI, 858 edits since March 3 of 2004. Snowspinner 03:08, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
A second FYI, previously was User:Jesus Chirst Snowspinner 03:21, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
However Fennec I refused to vote for bird when he was nomated for syosp!!! :)
Plato- Sign your remarks, wouldya? =b
  • I suggest that we not delete this nomination this time. I'm tired of the complaining whenever this nomination gets deleted. Let's let it go down 2/20/0 this time. Snowspinner 00:48, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Note Lir's support of this user and the nominator of the same user for an admin above. (Until it's removed.) Draw your own conclusion about potential sock puppet issues. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 02:55, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


A few questions. (I know I've already voted here, but I still have some questions.)

  1. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
  2. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Misplaced Pages been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
  3. Of your Misplaced Pages edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?

Thanks. Snowspinner 03:17, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • People are known by the company they keep. See the contributions of User:I support the Cabal and User: Voûte Royale, both of whom have self-identified as friends of Plato, both of whom have done nothing but vandalize and make death threats. How would a so-called new user such as I support the Cabal know to try to pass himself off as me unless he'd been given the information by Plato himself? RickK 20:21, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

People who request disciplinary action against nominator, if possible

  1. Neutrality 03:46, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) (as mentioned above, Oppose #2)
  3. RickK 04:46, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  4. 172 10:20, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Assuming we get a trolling policy sorted out. After the last vote this is a clear case of trolling. theresa knott 10:51, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • After thinking about it, how can discipline someone for trolling when we don't actually have an antitrolling policy in pace yet? theresa knott 23:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. Ambivalenthysteria 11:30, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. David Cannon 12:50, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC).
  8. GeneralPatton 14:06, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  9. UtherSRG 17:39, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  10. Graham ☺ | Talk 18:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) though I understand there is no precedent for this action yet
  11. Cribcage 18:30, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  12. If it's possible, yes, of course! blankfaze | (беседа!) 18:58, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  13. Lst27 21:14, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  14. David Gerard 23:51, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  15. The nominator is obviously either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Lir, and should be banned as a troll. --H. CHENEY 04:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

LoL -- what a bunch of noobs you guys are. Luckily, Jimbo Wales knows as well as I that Cesido Tallini is not my puppet. Run along little nooblets, your cabal will one day be destroyed. Lirath Q. Pynnor

How can people be both noobs and in a cabal? Aren't the two groups mutually exclusive? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:39, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

They are noobs to law and order. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Ah, makes sense now. I knew there had to be something. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 13:31, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • I oppose going after Lir. Lir's not harming anybody. --Merovingian✍Talk 19:47, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • I changed my mind. We still shouldn't ban Lir, but this kind of disruption does need some kind discipline. --Merovingian✍Talk 20:18, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
      • You do know that Lir has been banned once before, promised to behave and stop using sock puppets, has been shown to still be using sock puppets, and is currently under review to be banned again, right? RickK 20:21, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
        • Ermf, I don't want to believe that Lir is evil (read: troublesome), (s)he has contributed decently. Now I'm confused. --Merovingian✍Talk 21:47, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Who are you requesting disciplinary action from? Is there any policy that allows this?- -- Cecropia | Talk 01:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • To hell with policy, bureaucracy, and red tape. Whatever happened to plain, old-fashioned common sense? The Arbitration Committee are nice folks, dedicated Wikipedians -- but they take this community far too seriously, and they aggravate more problems than they help. Spend a month debating? "Presenting evidence"? Knock off the nonsense. This isn't a courtroom, and it isn't playtime. These trolls have zero interest in contributing to an encyclopedia. They don't even disguise that fact. They are singly intent on disrupting this project, and they need to be banned. Cribcage 04:14, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Why are you requesting disciplinary action? My blindness may well be because I am new to Misplaced Pages, but the only "crime" that I see is that IndigoGenius is an aquaintance of an aquaintance of Lir, whom I am not-so-gradually realizing is not well-liked, for reasons I am only beginning to discern. Spectatrix 03:14, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
    • I've dropped a note on your talk page. But making nominations of people such as this, which can only lead to failure (aka "joke" or "troll" nominations) is Bad. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 11:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • In case you missed it, Lir nominated IndigoGenius as well, after IndigoGenius had nominated Plato, and the measure was so soundly shouted down that it's already been removed (in compliance with the "no-way-under-the-sun this will pass" rule). - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 13:51, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • This whole Red Faction nonsense ought to be banned for good, they do nothing but vandalize.--GeneralPatton 21:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • YOU! People on the list above! You are aware of a thing called democracy? Or not? Muriel G 11:02, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Democracy: from the Greek demos + kratos, or mob-rule? Exactly what we see here... Anárion 11:35, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • This is not a democracy. This is an encyclopedia. Cribcage 23:41, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Neutrality (20/5/2) Ends 04:27, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality has been an exceptional contributor to Misplaced Pages. Uploading excellent fairuse images, volunteering with the Association of Members Advocates, making meaningful edits to articles involving history and political science, and contributing positively to community dialog have been Neutrality's hallmarks. I think the community can agree that Neutrality's 2000 edits have been an invaluable addition to Misplaced Pages, and we should expand the responsiblity of Neutrality to include adminship. --H. CHENEY 04:27, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to Hcheney and Ambivalenthysteria: the former has been kind to me from the first day, while I look foward to working with the latter as a sysop! (see below) I am confident I can help keep Misplaced Pages sane (or as sane as it could ever be, anyway) ;) Neutrality 04:46, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. H. CHENEY 04:27, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. From what I've seen, I couldn't agree more. Ambivalenthysteria 04:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Hephaestos|§ 04:53, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. Acegikmo1 05:11, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Woggly 09:25, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC) the cliche, "thought you were one"
  6. EddEdmondson 09:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. ALargeElk | Talk 10:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  8. 172 13:02, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  9. Quadell (talk) 18:54, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
  10. If you've got Hcheney's support, you've got mine. blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:12, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  11. David Cannon 20:45, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC).
  12. Strongly support. Lst27 22:33, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  13. older≠wiser 22:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  14. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:11, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  15. Merovingian✍Talk 07:00, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Great work nearly single handedly creating Charles Graner. Snowspinner 03:45, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Danny 05:13, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  18. I can't believe I totally missed this! Of course I support. Mike H 01:11, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
  19. Don't blank talk pages. Cribcage 23:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  20. Novelty a mediocre reason to oppose. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 20:24, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Has been a logged in user for less than 2 months. Maximus Rex 22:25, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    A question, if I may. I respect your vote, but I would like to ask you this: what would make me a better sysop two or three months from now, as opposed to today? Neutrality 04:24, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
  2. I can't answer for Maximus Rex, but I can give you an answer. In two or three months we'll know you better, and see more of your work and interaction with the community. I would also point out that the controversy surrounding Quadell which caused several, including you, to vote against him, did not occur until he had been here the three months. This seems to me reinforce the idea that three months perhaps should be a hard minimum. Therefore, I oppose for now. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Here for under 2 months. Has far less editing experience than sheer number might suggest; most edits have been minor, and to a small number of articles (for instance this cumulative diff for 101 consecutive edits to Dennis Kucinich, only 43 of which were marked as minor). Not always careful about wikiquette; see for instance this blanking of Talk:Charles Graner (an article Neutrality had self-nom'ed on fac), uncharacteristically marked as minor. +sj+
    That said, I loved the work on el Cid... come back in six weeks. +sj+ 16:39, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    While I respect your decision, I do not believe the blanking of the talk page was a violation of wikietiquette. There were suggestions made to improve the article, and I made them; thus, the comments were irrelevant, and I cleaned up the talk page. I did not, and will not, ever blank or modify a talk page for reasons that could reasonably be defined as not valid (for example, removing constructive criticism of me, or the opinions of someone whom I disagree). That said, I of course respect your vote, thank you for your feedback, and forward to working with you in the future. Happy editing! Neutrality 00:35, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
    One of the three blanked suggestions had been implemented, but two had not (see the current Talk page, where someone has restored the blanked comments). I know you weren't trying to remove criticism; maybe the suggestions were poor ones. But they should still be left up, with a note of "implemented!" or "that's silly", or at worst, archived (with a link to the archive left on the Talk page). +sj+
    Also, thanks for your comments regarding my work on El Cid! I appreciate them. Neutrality 00:37, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
  4. VV] 21:32, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) Agree with comments above. Nothing against this user, but too soon.
  5. BCorr|Брайен 18:08, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC). I agree -- too soon -- probably in a few weeks.
  6. pir 21:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I object to counting the votes of users with three letter word usernames. Possible troll. --H. CHENEY 21:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Please renominate yourself in a couple of months time, when you are more experienced. == The Anome 18:21, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Might make a good sysop, but I'm sick of seeing talk pages being blanked. I saw this user do that twice to Talk:Calvin and Hobbes. Talk pages are an important record to complement an article. Everyking 09:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've pledged to stop it. The clear consensus says it's a wikietiquette violation, so I'll oblidge. Neutrality 06:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Also, a preemptive response to the inquiries that will surely come: Yes, I have read the Administrators page and understand the rights and responsibilities that come with the office. I would probably patrol Recent Changes for vandals, as well as helping out at Vandalism in Progress and VfD. I’d also assist with editing the Main Page (grammatical errors drive me crazy, being the copy editor that I am.) Neutrality 04:46, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • A few questions.
  1. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
  2. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Misplaced Pages been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
  3. Of your Misplaced Pages edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently? Thanks. Snowspinner 03:17, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • And a few answers:
  1. Probably El Cid and Charles Graner.
  2. I have categorized many Olympic-related articles. I also report vandalism wherever I find it. Occasionally I go to "Special pages: Short pages" and check implausibly short pages to make sure they haven't been blanked. If I find they have, I revert the article and report the vandal on Vandalism in Progress.
  3. I wish I had the patience to use the edit summary box more.
Thanks for your questions. I hope this helps you :) Neutrality 03:38, Jul 11, 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.

User:Quadell (19/5/3) ends 17:20, 16 July 2004 (UTC)

Since the entire opposition to Quadell's nomination rested on an asuumption concerning the appropriateness of his comments on a single article, I took the liberty of asking Jimbo whether he could claify his own position on Quadell's actions. I received a response two days ago, but waited for Jimbo's permission to reproduce his comments, and they are below, verbatim:
"I have no opinion about the RFA, (I don't know him) but I did not see his work on Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz as being bad or damaging. Indeed, his research was very helpful, I think, and as you put it, it just looked like "good journalism" to me. His closing remark was a bit rough, but I don't see any real problem with it.
"And you are right of course, if I was really worried about a lawsuit, I could have just deleted the page, protected it, put a stub in there, asked people to tread lightly or whatever. But (a) I am not really worried about a lawsuit and (b) I want the article to get things right.
"If we do NPOV the right way, then we will say virtually nothing ourselves, and merely report on what other people are saying. We will be safe.
Even now, I feel that the article could be improved. "There is evidence that NCB, bin Mahfouz's bank, was involved in funding an al-Qaeda group." That is *us* making a particular claim. We should avoid that. Who claims that there is such evidence? Let's just report on that.
"--Jimbo"
I have restored this nomination for the three days that were "lost" since the first discussion of bin Mahfouz article. Since all the voters made their votes in good faith, we all now have the opportunity to reconsider. My only other comment is to note that Quadell has dealt with this issue with patience and exceptional good grace, further demonstrating his fitness for adminship, -- Cecropia | Talk 17:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I feel I could contribute to Misplaced Pages as a moderator, and I'd like to try. I've been a member for three months and a day, and in that time I've made a little over 1300 edits. Look over my work and see what you think; in the past week, I've created new articles on Amanullah Khan, Ben Webster, Richard Boone, Patrick Jenkin, Table Alphabeticall, Festival of Muharram, Cursor Mundi, Hobson-Jobson, Hereward Thimbleby Price, and others. Quadell (talk) 20:58, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Quadell has discussed this issue on his User Page -- Cecropia | Talk

Support

  1. ] I think he'll be fine;)
  2. Cecropia | Talk 19:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) He wikifies, works on requested articles, does the kind of dog work (categorizing, copyedit) that admins should do, and expresses a positive desire to do admin work. Gladly support.
    • I have had no knowledge of Quadell before this nomination. I've again reread the material on the Talk Page of the disputed article. Jimbo could have (1) deleted the article with an explanation or (2) protected it and asked that discussion cease. He did neither. He did say the article needed to be corrected, but didn't say to whitewash it. Some of us are pillorying Quadell, but it's Jimbo's neck that is on the line, not the critics "defending Misplaced Pages". If Jimbo speaks on this and says his intent was not to try to affirm apparently true parts of the article, that's one thing, but I've been a journalist, and what Quadell did looks like good journalism; everything we he said is sourced. If some of those sources have been recanted, tell us and we can say so. So, until Jimbo says I'm wrong, If he erred in doing research that Jimbo seemed to be encouraging, so be it, but this makes me think moreso that he would be a fine admin. I strongly reaffirm my support for Quadell.
  3. Cribcage 21:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. Ambivalenthysteria 03:52, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Handles tight spots (delicate subjects) very well. --Merovingian✍Talk 05:28, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, why not. You seem level-headed enough, and quantity of edits does not necessarily correspond to quality of edits. Plus I didn't want to be in the same boat as Acegikmo1. Just make sure you're familiar with all the policies, okay? blankfaze | •• | •• 06:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) Vote withdrawn. Nothing personal, but in light of your actions discovered by Secretlondon combined with my original skepticism, I no longer feel comfortable with this vote. blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. Lst27 22:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. Elf | Talk 04:01, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC). In my limited dealings with Quadell, my general impression is of someone who is flexible, cheerful, agreeable, a quick learner, & willing to go exploring to find out more about Misplaced Pages. Elf | Talk 04:01, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  8. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:27, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  9. Lirath Q. Pynnor A superb user!
  10. Danny 04:56, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) I think we are overemphasizing this entire Khalid bin Mahfouz thing. In al other respects, Quadell has been a top-notch user. His response, even if hasty, was to an exceptional instance of someone who is clearly under some sort of suspicion attempting to force Misplaced Pages, through litigation, to clear him. While the situation is delicate, it is certainly not one that admins should be expected to handle. I therefore support, based on Quadell's other contributions.
  11. VV] 19:22, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) I agree with Cecropia's assessment that Jimbo's instructions by no means precluded the route Quadell took, which he clearly put much research and effort into.
  12. Beth ohara 19:28, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC) Quadell is a proficient researcher, excellent writer, and works very hard to keep his views neutral. He takes his role on Misplaced Pages very seriously. He has a humble attitude toward his articles and places Misplaced Pages's mission ahead of his own motivations. He would be an excellent admin.
  13. David Remahl 20:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) Changed from neutral (see below). I agree with Cecropia that the candidate has handled the pressure of this whole situation with great calm.
  14. ] 21:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) Good contributor, did well on the Khalid bin Mahfouz article - excellent research - commend him.
  15. David Cannon 23:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC). I'm not one to beat about the bush, but now that Jimbo has clarified the legal aspects of the article in question, I am withdrawing my opposition to Quadell's nomination. My overriding concern was that a lawsuit should be avoided at all costs; now that Jimbo has allayed my fears, I have no further reservations about supporting this nomination. Quadell is a writer who does his homework. BTW, thanks for explaining on your user page where you stand, Quadell. That explanation puts your actions in a different light altogether. I apologise for making 5 out of 2+2 earlier.
  16. Looking through contributions, a lot of them - several hundred at least - are minor edits, mostly adding categories to articles. That's no criticism: it's all necessary work. But it does mean that you perhaps don't have as much experience as some others might have with the same number of edits. Combined with the fact that this is a self-nomination, I'm inclined to oppose, for now, but would certainly reconsider in a couple of months.Neutrality is right, adminship should be no big deal. On that basis, and on the basis of what Quadell has said here, and on the basis that other Wikipedians who I greatly respect seem to have no problem, I'm moving to neutral. As with at least one other here, I have found myself in all three camps over the course of this nomination. But unlike blankfaze, I've ended up in Support, I've read carefully over all aspects of this issue, and Quadell's response to it. He demonstrates maturity and a commitment to NPOV (regardless of his own point of view). Supporting - and hopefully this will be the last time I move my vote! -- ALargeElk | Talk 14:32, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  17. My concerns have been addressed. Support. --H. CHENEY 21:43, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  18. Ditto what Dick said. Neutrality 00:04, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  19. 172 00:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Your response to the threatened libel action on Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz doesn't give me confidence that you have the maturity needed. Secretlondon 02:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    In all honesty, perhaps I'm missing something. Jimbo posted information about this suit. He did not protect the article and say we should abandon it, then he said "in the meantime, some specific points to research include:" followed by a number of talking points. Then I see Quadell posted an amount of information which appears to be well-sourced. Don't you think it's up to Jimbo to say if Quadell's material is inappropriate? Was Quadell supposed to "read between the lines" and assume the article should be whitewashed or espunged? It seems to me that if Jimbo's intent was that, as a matter in litigation, we should leave it be, he would have said just that. Am I wrong? -- Cecropia | Talk 07:14, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Yes you are, IMHO. When lawyers take exception to claims made in an article, Wikipedians should not comment on the content unless they are absolutely sure they know what they are doing. In a provocative summing up, User:Quadell repeated/embellished some of the points challenged by the lawyers. So Misplaced Pages effectively re-published information that lawyers had already taken exception to. I'm sure Jimbo Wales didn't intend that to happen when he mentioned points to research. Moriori
  2. I agree (to oppose). A paragraph Quadell wrote on Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz has created a much greater threat to Misplaced Pages than the original article. I suspect Quadell does not know why. If Elf is correct that Quadell is flexible, cheerful, agreeable, (and) a quick learner then I guess I might change my opinion in a few months time.Moriori 03:25, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
    As a PS, I think Quadell should no longer edit Khalid bin Mahfouz. On his user page, Quaddell says I also, somewhat perversely, enjoy shining a light on influencial people who would rather not attract too much attention, such as ...... Khalid bin Mahfouz..... Rightly or wrongly, some people might say that indicates he is editing with malice.Moriori
  3. I've never voted against anyone before, usually I abstain if I choose not to vote positively. But in regards to Khalid bin Mahfouz, as well as Quadell's user page, I must agree with Moriori, as it troubles me to think of the consequences if something like this happened repeatedly. Rhymeless 05:24, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. Wow, this is the first time I've ever voted in Support, Oppose, and Neutral on one person. But seriously: I was originally only going to withdraw my support vote, by I am really concerned with the Khalid bin Mahfouz stuff. I don't think you're ready for this. Get a clear head and come back in a few months. Nothing personal. blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:02, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • While I still oppose (I think more experience can't hurt), I would like to thank Quadell for handling the aftermath of this whole Mahfouz thing honourably and patiently. I'll support in a month or so. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • David Cannon 12:27, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC). Quadell, I am disturbed by your apparent lack of discretion with respect to the lawsuit threatened by Khalid bin Mahfouz. Sticking your neck out is fine; only this time, it isn't your own neck, but Misplaced Pages's. I would expect a greater sense of responsibility from someone who wants to be considered for any kind of leadership position. I'm not saying that the opinions expressed were necessarily wrong; I am simply saying that you need to be a lot more discrete about how and when to air such potentially inflammatory views. When Misplaced Pages is threatened with a lawsuit is not the time. I have noting against you personally, Quadell, but I think you need to demonstrate greater maturity in tense situations, and I fear that appointing you as an administrator would be seen by the people threatening the suit as Misplaced Pages's throwing a cloak of approval over your behaviour. For that reason, and also on principle, I oppose this nomination. Changing my vote to support on the basis of Jimbo's statement.
    • "Sticking your neck out is fine; only this time, it isn't your own neck, but Misplaced Pages's." This isn't entirely fair. Once legal action has been threatened regarding libel, it's perfectly reasonable to assume a plaintiff might name individual editors in his suit, alongside the Wikimedia Foundation. I find it unlikely Quadell was ignorant of this possibility -- and while the wisdom of his action may be questionable, it certainly took guts. Cribcage 22:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree, it took guts, and I admire him for it. I like Quadell as a person, and have a lot of respect for his scholarship as a writer. My chief concern here, however, is that Misplaced Pages doesn't get sued. I'll be happy to support Quadell's nomination once this legal issue is resolved to Jimbo's satisfaction. In the meantime, my opposition remains, but I think I did overreact, and apologize for doing so. David Cannon 02:28, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Acegikmo1 21:21, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) I remember your username because I've come across your edits in the past. A brief scanning of your contributions confirms that you've made many excellent edits and have also engaged in good discussion. My only reservation is that you've only been here since April. I would be happy to support in a few months.
    • IMO, kind-of a low number of edits for a self-nomination. Plus, from a quick glance at the User's talk page, he seems to not be as familiar with Misplaced Pages policy as he need be. I'd probably support after 2000+ edits and a thorough reading of all of our policies as well as Misplaced Pages:Administrators. blankfaze | •• | •• 21:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Will support after 1500 edits. --Merovingian✍Talk 09:55, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Although Quandell's comments on the aforementioned talk page are troublesome, I sympathize - I suspect he is n ot completely off the mark in his assesment of the person in question, and I think it very unfortunate that Misplaced Pages needs to let itself be bullied by people who have enough money to spend threatening British libel cases against anyone who says things about them that they don't like. That said, the situation required tact and care that he didn't display. Adding more potentially libelous statements to Misplaced Pages was not entirely helpful. I do not think this incident is a reason to oppose, however it combined with the relative newness and the sense that it is perhaps too soon for a self-nomination, I am at least concerned enough to withhold support until a later date. Snowspinner 15:03, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • David Remahl 17:49, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) He did what Jimbo Wales suggested and researched the points pointed out by the lawyers and posted them on the talk page. If we cannot discuss a page accused for libel in the open, how should we then handle it? I would support, but in this case I think waiting another month is warranted. Changed to support in accordance with my first instinct.
  3. Sheeesh, I'm completely confused about my own opinion on this now. I think I'll switch to neutral and give my brain a break. EddEdmondson 15:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Comments:

  • User has exactly 1354 edits as of this minute, for anyone who wants to know. blankfaze | •• | •• 20:10, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A few standard questions for admin candidates, if you care to respond:

  1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
  2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Misplaced Pages up to date?
  3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
Thanks and good luck. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Answers: Yes I have read the Administrators section, and yes, I am interested in sysop custodial duties. Some of what I would want to help with are things I already do in a more limited capacity: looking through recent changes for errors, welcoming new users, adding most-requested articles, and watching out for vandalism. I would also want to be able to respond to editor requests for assistance. Quadell (talk) 15:05, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Is there any part of Quadell's history I could look at to see how they might handle an edit war? Quadell - have you ever edited a controversial article for instance? Given this is a self-nomination an indication of how diplomatic you can be would be helpful. EddEdmondson 15:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sure. In fact, when I first discovered Misplaced Pages, I jumped in with creating and updating biographies of 9/11 Commission members, Khalid bin Mahfouz, and Katharine Gun! Those could have been landmines, but I tended to discuss before making big changes, and I didn't run into any conflicts right away. But when I tried to edit the September 11, 2001 attacks article, I ran into a conflict (which is preserved in the amber of Wiki). I suggested a change here, and after murmers of approval, made the change. Another user reverted the changes, and I responded here. I didn't know much about Misplaced Pages policies at the time, but I tried to be polite. I offered to put it up for a poll, but the other user did not want to. Not knowing the procedures for dispute resolution, I simply let the matter drop. Knowing what I know now, I would request third party assistance, start a poll, or ask for Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation. Still, I did not turn the dispute into an edit war, and I have never participated in one. I tend to avoid these sorts of conflicts when possible, and with a few embarrassing exceptions, I don't let my ego get me into a fight. Quadell (talk) 18:51, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yep, you sound like a Buddhist, all right. :-P blankfaze | •• | •• 19:15, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • People lose sight of the fact that adminship should be "no big deal," demanding that sysop candidates have thousands of brilliant edits before supporting. This is misguided. Neutrality 01:08, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree, but our view is outnumbered. What drives me nuts is that there's no consistency. If y'all are going to insist that adminship must be doled out carefully, and not simply granted to anyone who behaves responsibly, then change the stated policy. Cribcage 06:07, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Like most everything else here, the policy has been chewed over until there is consensus, which may mean agreement, but also may mean lack of opposition to the current understanding. The quotation of "no big deal" came after some users were virtually wanting to raise a Star Chamber in chewing on certain candidates--this is not a coronation and the new sysops don't become princes and princesses of the realm. That is why this is not a big deal—However, we sometimes go in the opposite direction now (not referring to this candidacy, which I supported early and firmly) and start passing out adminships like peanuts just so somebody and say "hey, I'm a sysop on Misplaced Pages cooooool!" and then rarely ever perform the work that underlies the desire to have more sysops. I think at a minimum, a candidate should exhibit some measure of maturity and calmness, fairness in dealing with others, including those with opposing views, and a positive desire not to be a paper sysop. For those purposes, and those alone, this is a big deal. If we just want to make sysop a simple right of passage, then give out "I'm a proud Wikipedian" awards with a nice graphic to put on home pages. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:36, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, a few immature people may want adminship solely for status ("paper sysops"). What's the harm? Those people aren't going to perform cleanup duties, etc. whether they have sysop status or not. If they want cheap bragging rights, why do we care? Cribcage 00:23, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • There is no great harm, except that we want to encourage people to take sysophood seriously. People do not respect what is cheap, and we need people to have enough pride in obtaining the position to take it show willingness to make an effort, not just accept a title. If they can't show a desire to understand the duties and make a non-binding commitment upon seeking a position of responsibility, the community should be aware. If sysophead sysophood were really "no big deal ," our polling would not have indicated that a requirement of 75%-80% assent is almost universally expected for promotion. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:13, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A few questions. (I know I've already voted here, but I still have some questions.)

  1. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
  2. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Misplaced Pages been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
  3. Of your Misplaced Pages edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?

Thanks. Snowspinner 03:17, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)


Quadell's Answers:

  1. It is very difficult to select just one article that I am proudest of. If I had to narrow it down to ten, I might choose B.K.S. Iyengar, Aboriginal Tent Embassy, Daniel Ellsberg, Fibromyalgia, Tian Tan Buddha, Daniel Berrigan, Pema Chodron, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Buddhist philosophy, and, ironically, Khalid bin Mahfouz (the article itself, not the talk page.) But in some ways, one might say I have contributed most successfully to the John Mitchell article and its disambiguated links. (It was quite confusing, with all the alternate spellings and misspellings, to make sure the right person was referred to.)
  2. I have attempted to be helpful, structurally, to the adding of categories (such as Bibles et al, and Politicians by nationality et al), and in fixing pages listed on Misplaced Pages:Deadend pages (and removing pages that were not deadends from the list).
  3. I'm not yet sure whether my discussion on Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz was a mistake or not. I'm still thinking about this. Perhaps my biggest regret is that when I was a new user, I enthusiastically added images to articles without worrying about boring issues like copyright. ;) I found out too late, those issues matter a lot. This created a lot of extra work, both for me and for other people. Quadell (talk) 16:55, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I was shocked to discover so much discussion on this page about the Khalid bin Mahfouz page. That page is potentially the most important to get right on the pedia right now. At first I thought few people were working of fixing it because few knew about the problem. However upon visting this page it becomes abundantly clear that many of Misplaced Pages's finest know about it, but have decided to do nothing except attack the person who has tried to fix it! That looks like a pretty poor show to me. Pcb21| Pete 19:57, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

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


Other requests

Possible misuses of administrator powers
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Add topic