Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Early archives

message: See Archive 1
Sorry about how the adminship nomination went. I guess that you wouldn't want to deal with all the pointless bickering and politicking. Oh well, it's the community's loss. Good job on the Continuation War, btw. 172 01:58, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:172]]'s comment on adminship

message: Since when do requests for de-adminship have to be approved by community consensus? It is the editor's choice whether they want to become an admin -- we don't force them into it -- and it is the editor's choice if they want to resign. As far as I'm concerned, resignations can be handled by private communication with a developer, followed by a public announcement. If, after the announcement, the community convinces the editor to change their mind, sysop status should be restored without the need for further community involvement (i.e. no need to ask here again). -- Tim Starling 02:36, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
: You're right on the first point. I edited the page appropriately.
: On balance, I'd say that normally the community should be involved on restoration, but that's just a preference. Martin 10:28, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough for me. -- Tim Starling 03:39, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)
originally added under the desysopping section:
Requests and nominations for de-adminship:
*If you're requesting your own de-adminship, you can do so private communication with a developer, should you wish to do so. If you're requesting de-adminship of someone else, you can do so here, but please first try to discuss the issue directly with the admin in question. 
This would be "off-topic" as User:MyRedDice has pointed out elsewhere. This is a page for straightforward request(s) to be a Sysop and does not conform to any Wikipedia policy. This is not the place to discuss Problem User Sysops. NightCrawler 22:58, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: I don't believe that it is off-topic. Martin 23:39, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  de-adminship 

message: :: I'm a bit concerned how fast Pakaran was turned into sysop -- it was only 48 hours between nomination and adminship.  Now granted, he had been discussed before, there was a large amount of support and he's a good contributor.  However, the process seemed quite fast, considering something like Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion has a 5 day "lag time" and adminship used to be a much more drawn out process. Has something changed? Fuzheado 18:09, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Concern... no lag time?

message: it is recommended that you wait until you have been a user for six months with a good number of edits.
6 months is a bit long isn't it? I was a sysop after 45 days... Evercat 23:51, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: There goes my sysophood... Κσυπ Cyp     00:22, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Can I count the 500 or so edits I've done to the MediaWiki strings on cy.wikipedia in the last week or so, just to keep my count up? :) -- Arwel 01:15, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: True. However, if you move pages, sometimes you travel back in time due to a bug. Maximus Rex 01:19, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I think it's more about having a guideline for when new people should be nominating themselves so they don't end up too disappointed when they don't get it. Angela. 02:21, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: We need to set a clear guideline whereby experienced contributors are not discouraged from applying by the possibility that they may be rejected for lack of experience. Minor edits are not necessarily a bad thing - people who fix typos can do the housekeeping work that makes them useful sysops. --Jiang | Talk 08:46, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, the bunch of minor edits referred to someone just "making enough edits to become a sysop". I think experienced contributors, if they are really experienced and contributors, they need not fear rejection: in theory, sysops should be no more than experienced contributors (am I wrong?) only that their status is "recognized". Time and practice, that's all, isn't it? Pfortuny 09:01, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I like the current system.  It seems as if it works well, and it should probably stay the same.  Greenmountainboy 13:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Six months?

message: Maybe it's more important to specify number of edits. 2000? 3000? --Jiang | Talk 23:53, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: There goes my sysophood... Κσυπ Cyp     00:22, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Can I count the 500 or so edits I've done to the MediaWiki strings on cy.wikipedia in the last week or so, just to keep my count up? :) -- Arwel 01:15, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: True. However, if you move pages, sometimes you travel back in time due to a bug. Maximus Rex 01:19, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of edits more important, says [[User:Jiang|Jiang]]

message: Why have a policy about that at all? We're all capable of deciding if an individual editor has our trust, and expressing our confidence (or lack thereof). -- Cyan 02:03, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyan proposes case-by-case evaluation

message: :I think it's more about having a guideline for when new people should be nominating themselves so they don't end up too disappointed when they don't get it. Angela. 02:21, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to set a clear guideline whereby experienced contributors are not discouraged from applying by the possibility that they may be rejected for lack of experience. Minor edits are not necessarily a bad thing - people who fix typos can do the housekeeping work that makes them useful sysops. --Jiang | Talk 08:46, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, the bunch of minor edits referred to someone just "making enough edits to become a sysop". I think experienced contributors, if they are really experienced and contributors, they need not fear rejection: in theory, sysops should be no more than experienced contributors (am I wrong?) only that their status is "recognized". Time and practice, that's all, isn't it? Pfortuny 09:01, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I like the current system.  It seems as if it works well, and it should probably stay the same.  Greenmountainboy 13:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline, not policy says Angela

message: Being a sysop is more about being a trusted member of the community rather than about how many edits you've made, and you can't expect to have gained this in less than a week. People need to see how you handle various situations, etc. --Angela, quoted (and seconded) by Uncle Ed 22:26, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One of those situations clearly being "how do you act when you don't get your own way". Which this would appear to be.  -- Finlay McWalter 23:13, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, thats a very good idea.  Green Mountain 23:21, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria

message: It seems the new rule at this so-called open source project is that anyone with a sysop key can ban any user, or attempt to block any IP at any time. So much for the e-mail, discussion and what not. All it requires is a rope and a few willing allies. In this case, the vigilante action seems to have been to protect other sysops from criticism. --172.192.87.172 00:26, 25 Jan 2004
:I will be happy to discuss these matters further with you, but not on the wiki itself. You can email me at cyanonym at hotmail dot com. -- Cyan 02:26, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New rule

message: :Automate the process. Give them a request form where they enter the reason they want to become a sysop. Have seperate voting form which lists how long they have been here, their number of edits, and what reason they give. After exactly 2 weeks, if someone has less than a general consensus (let's say 80%) of the vote, they become a sysop.  --Raul654 02:49, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Automation suggested

message: Ohh! Tim was talking about the task of actually granting the permissions. (Slaps forehead) --Raul654 02:58, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ohh!

message: Lir, if you don't stop listing legitimate sysops for imagined (or trivial-at-best) slights, I'm going to protect this page, and do what Theresa tried earlier and move all your comments to the user-conflicts page. --→Raul654 22:59, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
There is nothing trivial about banning me. These three individuals are working together to prevent my participation on the wikipedia; they are doing this by abusing their powers. Lirath Q. Pynnor 23:20, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Abuse of the de-sysop area

message: Hi have a look at http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-February/014199.html  --  Optim 21:50, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: and http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010259.html -- Optim 21:52, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software system? 

message: Hi - Who exactly can vote on this page?  Can anyone, or is it only existing Sysops?  I've had opinions about some of the candidates before, but I was unsure of if I was eligible to support or oppose nominations?  Can this information be posted on the article page? -- DropDeadGorgias 18:19, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can vote here, although anonymous users or users with near-zero contribution history (less than 10 edits, say) might well have votes removed as they would be presumed by many to be either sock puppets or trolls.  I'll post this on your talk page too.  Anyone have an idea for how to word this to be placed on the meta page itself? Jwrosenzweig 18:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info.  I was definitely confused at first (mostly cause all of the votes were from SysOps, as far as I could tell).  This information would be useful on the main page. - DropDeadGorgias 19:33, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Any information on less than ideal conduct in disagreements would be particularly welcome - it's the first thing I look for when trying to decide whether I think somoene should be an admin. Next is how they handle being wrong - how or if they accept it. Jamesday 05:34, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who can vote? 

message: BL is a calm, reasonable user (since 2002) diligently working on a contentious set of articles. 172 09:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont agree with your vote counting. I personally either count neutral votes as both support and oppose, or I dont count them at all. It's not fair to count a neutral vote as only support or only oppose. Optim 18:58, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Are we sure? Has there ever been a case in the past when someone had won the vote on this meta page, but failed to attain admin status? This isn't a rhetorical question; I honestly don't know the answer. 172 02:37, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Sorry to be troublesome, but I'm ignorant of the processes involved here. Thus, I'm still wondering if we have a precedent case along these lines on votes for admin. If there is no precedent, this case points out the need to draft clearer guidelines.  172 01:03, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:BL|BL]]