Wikipedia:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions

Template:Communitypage

Requests for adminship are requests made for a Wikipedian to be made an administrator. These requests are made via nomination.

Here you can make a request for adminship. See Wikipedia:Administrators for what this entails and see Wikipedia:List of administrators for a list of current admins. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats for a list of users entrusted to grant sysop rights.

If you vote, please update the heading. If you nominate someone, you may wish to vote to support them.

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 a variety of articles without often getting into conflicts with other users. It is expected that nominees will have good familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures. The quality and quantity of a nominee's work here is also a factor. Many Wikipedians take into account the number of edits a candidate has made, as a rough indication of how active the candidate has been. There are no hard guidelines on this, but most users seem to expect between 500 and 1000 edits before they will seriously consider a nomination.

Nominations which are obviously unqualified (those with fewer than 100 edits, for example) may be removed before the voting is complete. Past votes shows that the great majority of Wikipedians will not support such nominations, so they have no chance of success. Nominations may also be removed early if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship.

Nomination. Most users become administrators by being nominated by another user. Before nominating someone, get permission from them. Your nomination should be indicative that you believe that the user meets the requirements and would be an exemplary administrator. Along with the nomination, please give some reasons as to why you think this editor would make a good administrator.

Self-nomination. If you wish to become an administrator, you can ask someone to nominate you. Self-nominations are accepted, however. If you want to nominate yourself to become an administrator, it is recommended that you wait until you exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure.

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.

After a minimum 7 day period for comments, if there is general agreement that someone who requests adminship should be given it, then a bureaucrat will make it so and record that fact at Wikipedia:Recently created admins and Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats. If there is uncertaintly, in the mind of even one bureaucrat, at least one bureaucrat should suggest an extension, so that it is clear that it is the community decision which is being implemented.

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.

I took a look at his user page and noticed that he has been doing a lot of good work on Critical Theory- and Foucault-related articles. 172 15:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Information: About 1800 edits, here since 18 April 2004. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:55, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I accept. I am willing to fulfill the responsibilities of adminship, and they are responsibilities I am interested in taking on. However, I am on the new side, and I want to stress that I completely understand anyone who would vote against my nomination on these grounds. Snowspinner 19:14, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. 172 15:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
2. JFW | T@lk 15:35, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
3. Starx 15:44, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
4. Guanaco 15:58, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
5. Meelar 16:39, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
6. Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 16:52, May 30, 2004 (UTC)
7. Support strongly.GrazingshipIV 17:34, May 30, 2004 (UTC)
8. Support.  – Jrdioko (Talk) 19:37, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support --"DICK" CHENEY 22:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
10. cryptfiend64 23:18, May 30, 2004 (UTC)
11. RickK 02:51, May 31, 2004 (UTC) Normally I'd say wait, but Snowspinner has been a very good contributor since arriving. Support strongly.
12. john k 06:05, 31 May 2004 (UTC). Sure, why not? Especially since he's shown an interest in administrative matters.[reply]
13. Fredrik 13:20, 31 May 2004 (UTC) - Great contributor. Users have been given sysop status in the past for doing less work.[reply]
14. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
15. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 10:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

*Support on July 18, subject to reconsideration

1. Cecropia | Talk 03:31, 31 May 2004 (UTC) Will any negative voters (or positive) join me in this category?[reply]
2. Infrogmation 05:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) Ok. Too soon as of writing, but with continued good work and a longer track record of interacting with other wikipedians looks like a potential good choice.

• No. I use four months, and while I like Snowspinner's work, I am disinclined to make an exception. Four months is not that long. Since part of the purpose of waiting is to offer us greater opportunity to gauge candidates' reaction to the blowing of the wiki-winds, voting "in advance" defeats some of the purpose. UninvitedCompany
  • I take this not so much as a "vote in advance" as "expect to support at future date barring unforseen issues" rather than "oppose" which has a different connotation to me. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. UninvitedCompany 18:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC). Respectfully oppose. While Snowspinner is a great contributor, this nomination is premature. He has only been here six weeks.[reply]
2. Too early. Maximus Rex 18:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
3. Not even a month and a half yet. Kingturtle 18:14, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
4. Far too new, would likely support in future with different nominator. Sam [Spade] 22:19, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

   If you people were employers and you were hiring someone, would you hire the person who got x amount of work done in a year, or the person who got the very same amount of work done in a month? I think that if a user has contributed work worthy of a year or two within a period of only a month or two, the short time span should only be taken as a sign of potential productivity, not potential "inexperience." IMHO, if one were to describe a formula for voting on admin status, I'd favor putting the quality/quantity of a user's contributions on the numerator and consigning the duration of the user's activity to the denominator. BTW, when I nominated Snowspinner, I wasn't aware that he'd not been user for a long time. But I'm only more impressed with his dedication to Wikipedia after having found out that he has done so much in such a short span of time. Perhaps for strategic reasons I should've waited a few more weeks, so I apologize to Snowspinner for my oversight (hence, having been an admin for roughly a year doesn't stop me from making mistakes). But, still, I suggest that you people change your votes. He's just as qualified (if not far more qualified) than the typical user who gets voted in unanimously. 172 02:57, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

   I think editors are becoming uncomfortable with an ever-shortening timespan for admins. You're making the analogy of employment, I'll make the analogy of romance and marriage. A little more time to know who you're dealing with gives you a comfort level for a longer-term commitment. May I propose this: when we get a user like Snowspinner and some others, who many feel would be well-qualified but is just kind of new, maybe we should simply suspend the nomination and revive it when the user reaches three months, rather than be forced to make a positive or negative judgment when it is simply too early. To that end, since this is supposed to be process of consensus rather than numerical voting, I'm casting a vote for suspension below. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:31, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

   I think this is, in general, a fabulous idea, though I worry about it being hell for people trying to sort out what nominations to bring back when - unless we just have a "Cold storage" section or something. That said, I also think delaying could easily be achieved through a neutral or negative vote at the time of the premature nomination, and then a renomination yourself on July 18th. Snowspinner 03:40, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

   My main concept is that an Oppose because of a simple time issue is not the same as an Oppose because you feel someone is unqualified, and I don't want an excellent editor like yourself to go away feeling "opposed" as it were, when some of us just want to adhere to a minimal standard. I feel it creates an unnecessary situation which might be embarassing to some nominees. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

   If this is a localized point instead of a general one, go ahead and oppose - as I said accepting it, I know this is an early nomination, and that those are controversial. (And I've opposed people on the grounds of being too early before. I've also voted for early admin status for people before. It really depends on the person for me.) That said, I suspect you're making a more general point in this case. :) Snowspinner 04:05, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

   I suspect you've got it! :) -- Cecropia | Talk 04:07, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

5. Far, far too new. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this user been involved in conflicts with other users? →Raul654 06:27, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

   I think that you're wrong. I don't think that this user has been involved in any major conflicts. I've probably had the strongest disagreement with him so far, and I'm the one nominating him. It was a more or less amicable disagreement. 172 06:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

   I can't think of any substantial conflicts that weren't amicably resolved through discussion... maybe with User:Avala? In either case, yes, I've entered a number of user conflicts, and been vocal in them. Generally, these have been conflicts I've found through RfC, or simply by watching RC. I have not been shy about adding my voice to debates. I have also behaved civily in those debates, respected Wikipedia policy, and sought consensus. So, yes, I've gotten into conflicts. But I would hope that staying out of conflicts is not a requirement for adminship - indeed, I think going into them and trying to seek consensus is a plus, not a minus. Snowspinner 13:16, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

   I think you will find that is an uncommon opinion. Sam [Spade] 13:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

   Then I'm uncertain what RfC is supposed to be for. Snowspinner 14:15, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

6. Just a wee bit too new. Sorry, Snowspinner.-- ALargeElk | Talk 16:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
7. Oppose. The user has not been here long enough and is not up on all the rules or past events. ChrisDJackson

Neutral

1. VV 22:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC) While 172's motives in making this nomination are suspect, Snowspinner is clearly an excellent choice. However, I do share the broader concerns about this being way too soon. So, neither support or oppose for now.[reply]

Discussion

I'm curious as to the reasoning behind objecting to a nomination due to the nominator. Snowspinner 22:39, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone done so? If you're referring to my comment, that is quite a misreading. VV 07:11, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade noted the nominator as one of his reasons for opposing. Snowspinner 15:41, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Since a nominator has the permission of the nominee, it is incumbent upon the nominee to show judgement in refusing any nominations that are inappropriate. There have been some recent examples involving a user with a pattern of making nominations of users who were not suitable candidates. I consider 172 a user in good standing, however, and only oppose this nomination based on the objective criteria I try to follow when voting here. UninvitedCompany 02:49, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Jrdioko has welcomed a ton of people, he's made over 2000 edits, and has been here since March 13. I think he'd make a great admin--and also, I'm getting sick of having to deal with the stuff he tags for speedy deletion. Meelar 20:26, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Meelar for the nomination, I accept. While I usually stick to taking care of smaller tasks on the Wikipedia and probably wouldn't end up using all the admin privileges right away, I do think a rollback link for vandalism and the ability to speedily delete speedy delete pages would come in handy.  – Jrdioko (Talk) 20:55, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Meelar 20:26, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
2. anthony (see warning) 04:27, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
3. Guanaco 16:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
4. Snowspinner 19:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support --"DICK" CHENEY 22:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
6. ugen64 17:45, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. UninvitedCompany 18:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC) Respectfully oppose. This nomination is premature. UninvitedCompany 18:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
2. Too early. Maximus Rex 18:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. I don't oppose, but I would rather wait another month before supporting. Two months seems a little early in this case. Angela. 22:30, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1. (originally under neutral) anthony (see warning) I can't find any of the speedy deletions being referred to.
   • I know there was at least one within an hour of this post, and I seem to remember at least one more during the past couple hours. Meelar 20:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
   • I believe deleting an article erases everything from its page history and the user contributions of those who made edits to it, so none of the pages I tagged to be deleted should be in my contributions (unless, of course, they was never deleted).  – Jrdioko (Talk) 21:00, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
   • Ah, good point. I was thinking you used Wikipedia:Speedy deletions, but if all you did was add the tag that's not going to be anywhere in the history. Looking at meelar's deletions in that time period, they look indisputable, so I'll move my vote to support. anthony (see warning) 04:27, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Niteowlneils#When should Merovingian nominate?. It's late enough so that all the voters are happy. --Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 07:45, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination, Merovingian. I accept. Realistically it probably won't change my activities much, as I mostly enjoy formatting and editing articles. But it would be nice to be able to revert faster, and leave a more standard message (so far I've usually just done a quick copy&paste of the date/time/user stamp of the version I'm reverting to), when doing RC patrol. I'd probably only help with the most blatant speedy delete candidates, and leave the more borderline cases to the more experienced admins. Niteowlneils 01:21, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I did think of one other admin-ish thing I'd probably do on occasion--swap articles with redirs when the redir has the more common spelling or capitalization, such as prime meridian and Prime Meridian. Niteowlneils 23:47, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really effect how I'd act as an admin, but, just for the record, I have added a first draft trying to explain what I feel should be included, at User:Niteowlneils/WIWO

I understand that some users, such as anthony, may disagree with my prefs. But, I think that it is desirable for the WP overall--the more viewpoints we consider, the better. As long as all of us are purusing NPOV coverage of all salient topics, I don't see how the net effect can be anything, but a "win". Niteowlneils 08:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 07:45, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
2. Kingturtle 07:52, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
3. Good work on VfD. Meelar 14:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
4. Turtles move very deliberately, I am told, so if Kingturtle approves, he must be here long enough. Besides, he has some gray hair, which indicates wisdom. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:19, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
5. Tuf-Kat 14:25, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
6. Chris 73 | Talk 15:08, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
7. BCorr|Брайен 16:10, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
8. Dori | Talk 16:11, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
9. jengod 16:25, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
10. Angela. 22:30, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
11. Jfdwolff | t@lk. Deletitionist of the scrupulous sort. 16:36, May 30 2004 (UTC)
12. Guanaco 16:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
13. Maximus Rex 18:13, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
14. Snowspinner 19:30, 30 May 2004 (UTC). I'd like to specifically note that I am not opposed to deletionist admins - I think admins should be a good mix of deletionists and inclusionists.[reply]
15. Support.  – Jrdioko (Talk) 19:47, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
16. I agree with Meelar, Jfdwolff, and Snowspinner. --"DICK" CHENEY 22:22, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
17. RickK 02:53, May 31, 2004 (UTC) Strongly support
18. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
19. ugen64 17:42, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
20. Jiang 23:22, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
21. Certainly support. Good work on the tutorial. Isomorphic 06:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
22. Strongly support. Far from being a deletionist, he has saved many articles from VfD by researching / improving. SWAdair | Talk 09:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
23. It's a little earlier than I'd like, but I support reservedly. →Raul654 15:35, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. anthony (see warning) Deletionist.
   • You say that is if it were a bad thing. RickK 02:54, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
     • Gee, what makes it seem like a bad thing, maybe because I put it as my reason for opposition? anthony (see warning) 03:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

How long has this user been here? →Raul654 07:50, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

4332 contribs since February 22, 2004. --Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 07:55, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Around 3000 edits since 05:42, 9 Nov 2003 [1]. Mirv will make an excellent administrator. He helps raise the bar for other contributors and is always level-headed. Earlier today I was surprised to find out that Mirv hadn't become an admin a long time ago; he should've been. 172

Thank you 172, I accept the nomination.

Regarding the questions raised by Snowspinner and UninvitedCompany below: As I explained to RickK when he asked, I agreed strongly with the ideas behind the summary, never mind the harsh language in which they were expressed. In retrospect I ought to have asked that the summary be made less abusive (or done so myself) before giving and maintaining my endorsement, and I apologize for not doing so.

I hope this explains things to everyone's satisfaction. —No-One Jones 18:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. 172 10:22, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
2. Mirv has done a lot of good work on Middle East topics. -- Viajero 10:31, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
3. Danny 10:51, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mirv aka No-One Jones is a great editor, and a good user I will fully support him for sysop! Comrade Nick User Talk Plato:@)---^--- 11:07, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
5. I always thought he already was one. theresa knott 11:18, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
6. I like the idea of an admin named Multiple Independently targetable Re-entry Vehicle... Not to mention ey are an extremely well qualified user. --"DICK" CHENEY 13:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
7. Meelar 13:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
8. older≠wiser 14:23, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
9. UninvitedCompany 15:43, 25 May 2004 (UTC). See comments below.[reply]
10. john k 15:48, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
11. Snowspinner 18:07, 25 May 2004 (UTC) My concerns are now addressed.[reply]
12. Michael Snow 20:27, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
13. Angela. 15:38, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
14. Chancemill 16:48, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
15. GrazingshipIV 17:42, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
16. MykReeve 22:41, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
17. BCorr|Брайен 13:29, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
18. After reviewing the question raised, I still support Mirv. Mirv has a long history of fairness and dedication to the project. Kingturtle 23:26, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
19. Tuf-Kat 14:26, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
20. Guanaco 16:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
21. Everyking 17:50, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
22. Maximus Rex 18:13, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
23. Hephaestos|§ 01:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
24. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
25. ugen64 17:44, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
26. I support Mirv. Mark 07:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. VV 21:30, 25 May 2004 (UTC) Oppose. No problems with this user early on, and he seemed impartial in my conflict with 172 at FOX News (where 172 was clearly wrong), but the stated issue shows very poor judgement both in (a) calling a user an "ignorant fuck" (his explanation above notwithstanding), and (b) endorsing the sentiment (a case of a wise user handling an ignorant user), which shows either a failure to understand the conflict before commenting or a very shoddy reading of events, neither of which reflects good judgement.[reply]
2. Sam [Spade] 20:52, 26 May 2004 (UTC) based on recent endorsement of personal attack. (would likely support at a later time)[reply]

Neutral

#Snowspinner 14:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC) Unable to support due to his endorsement of Danny's original statement in the RfC regarding 172 (See [2]).[reply]

Comments

I have indicated my support for Mirv's adminship above. Mirv is a fine, upstanding contributor who has made valuable contributions and who has familiarity with and involvement in admin-related matters. I did note his endorsement of the RfC text noted above, which I consider inappropriate, and all the more so because Mirv did not avail himself of the opportunity to distance himself from the comment when RickK brought it to his attention. However, because this is a relatively minor faux pas in the greater scheme of things, and since it appears to be an isolated event, I still support Mirv for adminship. UninvitedCompany 15:43, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I invite Mirv to explain the endorsement above either here, in e-mail, or on my talk page - prior to it I would have supported, and so I would welcome some explanation, as I would like to support. For the time being, I'm downgrading my vote to neutral. Snowspinner 15:59, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Overdue for adminship, and the isolated instance of endorsing a statement with abusive language is the only thing I have ever seen Mirv do that I consider inappropriate. I would not deny Mirv adminship on these grounds, any more than I would support de-sysoping Danny for writing the language initially. The statement has since been rewritten, and with that I think we should all be able to put it behind us. --Michael Snow 20:27, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

All I can find are people talking about the endorsement. Could someone point me to the specific endorsement in question? Kingturtle 03:21, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Check the link in Snowspinner and UninvitedCompany's comments, and read the statement I was endorsing. —No-One Jones 04:16, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nominators, please review the qualifications above. Self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure." To be considered seriously you should have an account name that is many months old. Most voters will want to see many hundreds of edits. Anything less will be regarded as obviously unqualified.

Hey guys! I think it is time I tried my hand at this again. It has been 2 months since I was nominated, and I took the advice of many expert wikipedians and did my work for a couple of months without incident. I have been here for about 7-8 months and made thousands of edits. I started out real shaky, but in the past 3-4 months, I have been conflict free. I have made great contributions to many current events and other political articles. I do not use a POV on here. Just today, I had to revert someone's negative change to G.W. 2004 campaign article. I understand this is an encyclopedia and is to be used for informational research, not opinionated research. I believe that grown here, as many of my fellow users have noted, and I beleive I can really help the encylopedia grow more if I am entrusted to be an admin. If you have any questions about my contributions, etc, feel free to post me a message. You can check out a list of my edits on my user page.

I appreciate your time and participation!

Support

1. Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 05:13, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
2. I say give him a chance at least and self-nomination is ok by me. GrazingshipIV 18:02, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. UninvitedCompany 15:48, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC). It has been six weeks since you were turned down last time, with something of a consensus that you could perhaps reapply in several months. In light of this, I am not prepared to give serious consideration to your self-nomination. UninvitedCompany 15:48, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
2. Snowspinner 15:52, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC) Not opposed in principle, however considering the contentiousness of the last nomination, I think that a self-nomination is inappropriate. Snowspinner 15:52, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

• • What is so innappropriate about re-applying as I was told I should do? I have worked hard and not had any problems for months. I don't see what the problem is. However, if you are not prepared to give me serious consideration, I will discard your comments. ChrisDJackson 16:40, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • One person suggested later consideration, and later was 3-4 months, not 6 weeks. Furthermore, I think that when a nomination loses by such a wide margin, and with such vocal concern about suitability from so many people (As opposed to simple "Too soon" concerns), and when one of the reasons for some of the opposition was the user's aggressive rallying of support, that self-nomination shows poor judgment. Better to wait the full amount of time for someone else to nominate. Snowspinner 16:57, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • Again, you are not correct. More than one person told me to re apply. You should re-read the last nomination page and my user page. There were at least 5-8 people who told me I would be a good admin if I came back in a couple month without incident. But of course, you would probablly be opposed if I came back in 2 years. ChrisDJackson
        • I've now read the past nomination a second time, as well as your user talk page. I can find few active encouragements to reapply. I think that, with the contentiousness of the past nomination, particularly your lobbying behavior during it, self-nomination showed a terrible lack of judgment, as did not waiting the "few months" that everybody reccommended. Attacking people for opposing your nomination, honestly, doesn't do you any favors either (i.e. putting words in my mouth) I might support a nomination by another user in a few months. Not now, and not self-nomination. Snowspinner 17:24, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Chris' last nomination was turned down on April 20, 2004. Votes were 5 supporting, 21 in opposition, 4 neutral.
• Link to Chris' last nomination

• I have to credit your enthusiasm that you are so persistent. I choose to credit that and look at it as innocent and positive though it could be seen as a scary thing.... like a person that is all too eager. I don't see a case yet for my vote. - Tεxτurε 17:30, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please add new requests at the top of this section

• Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on other Wikimedia projects can be made at m:Requests for permissions or m:Requests for Wiktionary permissions.
• Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta can be made at m:Administrator.
• Requests to mark a user as a bot can be made at m:Requests for permissions following consensus at wikipedia talk:bots that the bot should be allowed to run.
• Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.

• Information on misuses of admin privileges
• Current reviews of administrative actions