User talk:UninvitedCompany/archive3

French Revolution
See Vandalism_in_progress. :-) Ciao. (your talk page seams a bit long ?)--Gtabary 15:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Was just reading about revert rules on the wikipedia. It is suggestedt to always cool down revertes ware. Like wait an houre before reverting. A vote is happening about a 24 H block period on any user reverting more than 3 times in any 24 H. Ciao ciao. --Gtabary 15:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Pure vandalism is ordinarily reverted immediately, and the 3-revert guideline isn't usually applied. uc 15:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * OK. Will keep that in mind. Probably applies to things like POV. --Gtabary 15:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Exactly. uc 15:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Cults, anti-cult movement, NRMs etc.
Please vote at the cults talk page for removal of bias.

Old talk archived 1 2

Thanks, U.C. Opus33 23:48, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your RfA votes
[Courtesy copy from my Talk page. -- orthogonal 23:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

Hi.

Your recent votes on RfA include a statement about the purported ease of "de-sysopping" users. I presume that you are more than aware that this is hardly the case, and I imagine that your comment is motivated by an ongoing dispute.

Please stop, because activism in this form is not even remotely likely to bring about anything good.

You are correct that the project needs a mechanism in place to review sysops periodically to ensure their good behavior. There are pragmatic problems both in the details of such a policy and in the difficulty of reaching a consensus for it. In particular, any sort of review of adminship is likely to turn into a public spectacle unless it is conducted in private. Public spectacle is bad, because it creates lasting hurt that undermines the purposes of the project. Any sort of private review runs counter to the open, egalitarian principles of the project.

I am of the opinion that sysops should have their status reviewed after 3 months, 6 months, and every year after that. I think the initial review should be private by a group of a handful of trusted Wikipedians. If that review indicates problems, then perhaps the involvment of the community at large is warranted.

Such a policy is not likely to be approved by the community, because many are opposed to any sort of private proceedings, and because some are fearful that they may lose adminship for one reason or another.

One alternative might be to limit the use of the "block user" feature to users who have been admins for a while (say, six months). This could be done through policy rather than software. Most controversial admin moves involve blocks. On the other hand, such a policy may be unhelpful because many controversial blocks have been made by long-time admins.

Best regards

uc 22:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * My comment isn't motivated by any one ongoing dispute, but by what i see as a systemic problem at Wikipedia: we are creating, on average, one sysop a day, but we have no means of evaluating sysop after creation.


 * we are creating sysops not because of any need or shortage, but because the sysop title had become fashionable to have, and so the vote has become, to a greater or lesser extent, a popularity contest.


 * These are serious and systemic problems that I think deserve highlighting, and I do so in a relatively gentle way, by making a tongue-in-cheek comment along with my vote.


 * While I think your suggestions for evaluating sysops have some merit, I disagree that it is pernicious for me to make a light-hearted reminder with my vote. Voting is traditionally used for advocacy: few voters of Nader, for instance, thought their candidate had any real chance of winning in 2000, but they voted for him anyway. Are you prepared to say these votes should not have been made?


 * But I am more than willing to listen to you: what harm do you think my commenting on RfA causes? are you speaking as a user or a sysop?

Hi, I thought I'd join the discussion. I agree with UninvitedCompany that blocks are by far the biggest issue in terms of controversial admin behavior. Perhaps a solution could be found that does not go quite so far as complete desysoping. I would suggest that we consider a way for the community to request that an admin cease using the block/unblock function, without actually withdrawing the capability. This might be done based on a formal request by several community members citing evidence of multiple inappropriate blocks or unblocks. If the admin in question then uses the function again, the matter would be referred directly to the Arbitration Committee to consider desysoping. Meanwhile, admin status is not removed and the use of other admin privileges is unaffected.

The closest case in point I can think of is RickK, who after various complaints, some block/unblock wars (especially with Guanaco), and a lot of frustration recently swore off the use of the block function. While I don't think the process was helpful, I think the result was, and I hope it has helped RickK's personal stress level here as well. He "fell off the wagon" once, but I'm impressed that he remains a valuable contributor in spite of his frustration and still uses his other admin capabilities without causing the same amount of controversy. We could probably stand to have a few other admins take the same vow. --Michael Snow 23:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that would be a move it the right direction. But I worry that by not de-sysopping -- or even removing the ability to block -- we send the wrong message. Already we have a sysop who has vowed to take up RickK's mantle. It also sends the wrong message to other users: it tells newbies that sysops can get away with quite a bit, and receive only a slap on the wrist. It makes Wikipedia seem unfriendly for newbies already in some awe of the title "sysop".


 * If a sysop has demonstrated he cannot be trusted to use his extraordinary powers as policy dictates, why pretend otherwise? -- orthogonal 23:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It is less painful for all concerned to have the person surrender their powers voluntarily. Also, improper use of the block function does not necessarily imply that the person cannot be trusted with other admin capabilities. In part I like this approach because while it doesn't shift the balance away from "Adminship should be no big deal" to get, it addresses the core problem without technical measures that would create a more stratified social environment. --Michael Snow 00:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

These things all touch on certain organizational and definitional issues that all online communities suffer. I summarize:
 * There is little consensus on the appropriate use of bans and blocks
 * Nothing has been done to implement any new technical measures for dealing with socks and persistent vandals, particularly those using AOL proxies
 * There has been no effective review of "admin policy" for over three years, that is, no review of:means
 * how many and what kinds of admins the project needs
 * the criteria and means of granting adminship
 * the standards for exercising it
 * the means for removal
 * any sort of consideration for granting of individual or limited priviledges
 * This is compounded by the lack of any effective decisionmaking process and increasing difficulty with achieving fairness in "votes."

Further, there are attitudinal differences based in length of participation. There has been policy drift over the last few years and this leads to misunderstandings.

It's been nearly a year since the initial conversations regarding the AC occured, and it's only recently that the AC has been able to deal with problems on anything approaching a routine basis. Change comes slowly here. Best that we start now on some of this stuff, but I'm unsure that there are enough people concerned about these issues to form a core group to move the discussion along.

uc 18:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucrat candidacy
You state in your request for bureaucrat status that you've been an admin since last December. Actually, the bureaucrat log shows that this account was made an admin on April 24, 2004. Are you perhaps referring instead to your service on the Arbitration Committee? --Michael Snow 17:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * You could be right. I didn't look it up and perhaps had the dates mixed up in my head.  uc 19:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

subpages at Carleton College
uc tk Why are there subpages? What purpose do they serve? Did you create them? Can they be deleted? I'm confused. uc 17:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Why are there subpages? What purpose do they serve?
 * Please note these are talk subpages, which are standard practice, and not article subpages, which are, AFAIK, always moved, leaving redirects to normal article pages, unless their content/subjects make them deletable.
 * Bcz the page is over 32kB and needed to be broken up, and making the fragments subpages keeps them associated with Talk:Carleton College.
 * Bcz the changing of history that User:259 was attempting was an immediate problem, IMO requiring a responsible breakup & provision for orderly regrowth. ("Orderly regrowth" primarily entails
 * separating the (previously & IMO probably still to be) voluminous MC controversy from the normal business of the page,
 * keeping it from immediately growing beyond 32 kB again (i could reduce it only from 35kB to 30kB, without disrupting context)
 * keeping the potentially misleading history of it, introduced by User:259's revisionist-history edits, from being buried to an extent it would be less accessible or more confusing.
 * To provide another area to take up the essentially separate matter of User:259's bad behavior. (In particular, do you want me to point out to you now, where your comments were the target of forgery, or would you just as soon wait until i can put the whole thing together?)
 * Did you create them?
 * Yup, and i'll add a good-sized text to one of the empty ones.
 * Can they be deleted?
 * I would oppose deletion of any of them on VfD, including the one to which i expect to add only small instructions for additions by others, and would protest use of speedy.
 * I'm confused.
 * I'm sorry not to have found energy quickly to make it all less confusing, but i welcome your questions about any further confusions.

I'm adding this to both of our talk pages, but i suggest for clarity and convenience that we both continue only on my talk page (if we do continue). (Would you prefer that i leave a "More on mine" notice for you, on your talk page, when i respond, so that you know immediately that "You have new messages"?) --Jerzy(t) 21:44, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

Bureaucracy
From: The Bureaucracy To: UninvitedCompany Subject: Bureaucrat

Date: 17 October 2004

Pursuant to the vote ended this date, please be advised that, consensus being reached in the prescribed form:

1. You are a bureaucrat.

2. Congratulations.

3. You are now capable of promoting individuals to the status of administrator (sysop) 3.1 according to consensus 3.1.1 as demonstrated by voting according to RfA 3.1.2 as modified by updated expressions of sentiment of the community at T:RfA 3.1.3 using discretion to mediate and make decisions in difficult cases.

4. Remember to keep your wastebasket clean and your name tag straight.

You are empowered to enjoy. Be governed accordingly.

/s/ Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:06, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) Field Marshall

Gazwim
This has nothing to do with Norm so I'll reply here. As far as I understand Wikipedia norms, Gazwim's vote should not be counted. This does not mean it can just be removed. Standard practice in VfDs, RfAs and other votes that I've seen was to strike through the irrelevant vote, delist it, and explain reasons on the page. I consider simply deleting the vote a very dangerous practice. In particular you cannot justify it using remove personal attacks which was not approved, and furthermore specifically does not apply for votes &mdash; even for comments on votes! Gadykozma 18:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for choosing to reply here.


 * Once in a while I do things that I think are right even if the policy basis for them may be unclear. There was no useful content in the "vote" once the personal attack was removed; and my usual strategy when encountering personal attacks is to revert the entire edit rather than try to refactor, which in my experience actually makes matters worse.


 * The purpose of the "strikethrough" is to maintain transparency, an objective I believe I was able to achieve with a clear edit summary.


 * I believe that personal attacks have a cumulative effect in lowering the overall tone in the community here. I believe the damage increases as more people see the attack.  The best answer is to just delete them.  As for the vote, well, you and Gazwim and everybody else know exactly what I did and anyone who wants can put it back (I won't take it out a second time).  Gazwim has been editing today and has chosen not to, and has placed a note on his user page that leads me to believe that the vote and comment were tongue-in-cheek.


 * uc 20:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with this view. UC is a bureaucrat and has obviously shown good enough judgement to attain that status in the community. In many cases where a user's vote should be discarded, it is appropriate for the text to be striken. In this case; however, that would have left the immature and useless offense on the page and I don't think it is appropriate for personal attacks to be left anywhere. UC is a new bureaucrat, but in my view this action showed him to be very capable. He removed the offense, explained his reasoning for all to see, and let the offending user know that he could vote again should he wish, but to do so in a more orderly and constructive manner. This is exactly what I would have done (or what I would hope I would have done, at least). Well done, UC! Skyler 20:19, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * P.S.- I know you don't need outside defense for your actions, but I thought it appropriate in this instance to show that there was another side. Skyler 20:19, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

OK, policies aside, I think it is wrong to just leave the info on the edit summary. Something must remain on the page, otherwise it gets too close to tampering with votes. Voting must be crystal clear, otherwise the confidence in the voting mechanism is lost. If you just don't want to see personal attacks, leave a text such as


 * oppose vote removed due to personal attack, see User talk:Gazwim

BTW, I was aware that you are a bureaucrat when I left this comment. Again: I agree that the vote was bad; and I agree that you have the right to disregard it. All I ask for is, that when, a year from now, if somebody wants to know whether Norm was chosen properly or not, he would not have to wade through the RfA history. He should have all the relevant information on the page itself. Gadykozma 01:20, 21 Oct 2004


 * It matters not a jot that I am a "bureaucrat" since in this case I did something that any other user is empowered to do. And needless to say, I'll be waiting for Cercopia or someone else to promote in this case lest further aspersions be cast upon my actions in this whole matter.


 * I will also point out that throughout the entire history of the project, the only case I can think of where there was any sort of retroactive investigation as to whether someone was "chosen properly" or not was the curious matter of adminship of one of Alex Plank's sock puppets on meta, which was granted based on his adminship on some new minor-language wikipedia, where he was granted adminship because there weren't any admins. As I recall he couldn't even read the language in question and the whole business led to the meta adminship policy being reworked.


 * And in closing, I note that Gazwim has added his vote back in, this time with a rather more useful comment, which is exactly what I had hoped would happen, and which I believe renders any questions as to whether Norm was "chosen properly" moot.


 * uc 15:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ever feel your scars twinge?
I thought you might want to be aware of a discussion raised on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Userpage Protection Policy Change, in case you want to add some input. --Michael Snow 22:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unprotecting my subpages
Before unprotecting my subpages, I would appreciate it if you would discuss it with me first rather than just going ahead and doing it. Those subpages are mine, and nobody else should be touching them except for me. Many other users have their subpages protected, but they have never been vandalized (...should I continue?). Why have you targeted me? If you had discussed it with me before, I would have gladly unprotected all my subpages except for my test message, blanking warning and vandalism warning. They are my subpages, and I don't see any reason why anybody else should be editing them. I protected them so that it would not look like I said something that I didn't. I am currently planning to reprotect User:Frazzydee/Vandalism, User:Frazzydee/Blanking and User:Frazzydee/Test. Unless you still feel that I'm violating Wikipedia policies, or you have some other problem with that, please let me know. For the future, while I don't agree with your beliefs on protecting user subpages, I am willing to compromise to come to a mutually acceptable decision. I really don't appreciate you unprotecting my subpages without contacting me first so that we can discuss it, and I'm sure any other user wouldn't either. So for the future, please try to compromise and identify with users first. I look forward to your response. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|&#9997;]] 00:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You protected the pages while discussion of that very topic was underway at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. I refer you to my comments there, and apologize for any ill will.  uc 14:49, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nominate for Adminship?
Hi Uninvited,

Well I'm very honored by your thinking of it. But there's really no reason to me to be an admin; I do deplorably little in the line of reverting vandalism, maintenance, etc. Thanks for suggesting it, though. Maybe at some point later on if I ever feel it would make me a more effective community member I will ask you to nominate me. Yours very truly, Opus33 04:16, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Name changes
Hi uc. Do you know if this is for the old or new-style name changes? The current system uses the attribute change script, which does:

UPDATE old SET old_user=115307, old_user_text='Dirk Beyer' WHERE old_id IN (     6432292 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3AChanging_username&oldid=6432292     , 6433356 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk%3ABinary_decision_diagram&oldid=6433356      , 6445605 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Binary_decision_diagram&oldid=6445605      , 6401440 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Rabbit_Model_Checker&oldid=6401440      , 6378374 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Rabbit_Model_Checker&oldid=6378374 ...etc

(which is this case seems to have worked). The old method did:

select * from user where user_name='new'; update low_priority user set user_name='new' where user_name='old'; update low_priority user_newtalk set user_ip='new' where user_ip='old'; update low_priority cur set cur_user_text='new' where cur_user_text='old'; update low_priority old set old_user_text='new' where old_user_text='old'; update low_priority archive set ar_user_text='new' where ar_user_text='old'; update low_priority ipblocks set ipb_address='new' where ipb_address='old'; update low_priority oldimage set oi_user_text='new' where oi_user_text='old'; update low_priority recentchanges set rc_user_text='new' where rc_user_text='old';

I'm not sure why old_text wouldn't be updated, but it's possible something was overlooked. Can you give an example of a record which wasn't updated? Thanks  &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 06:41, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

Protected relics in user namespaces
As part of this user page protection business, of all things I happened across one such page I had completely forgotten about - User:Hcheney/Michael Snow (the fruit of someone's background check on me when I was a candidate for the Board of Trustees). It's amusing to me at any rate. At least for this one case, I figure there's absolutely no way anybody could possibly challenge my right to unprotect the page. --Michael Snow 07:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Heh. Maybe next someone will post the latest 10k from Uninvited Co.'s SEC filing.


 * I occasionally run queries for protected pages, because they do tend to get lost. It may be time to do this again.  It's something of a chore, since queries are usually disabled and I have to download the database and set up a mirror to do it.  uc 14:35, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If you want to run a query again, that might be useful. In this case, I was trawling through archives of the protection log for user pages, but it would certainly be an overwhelming chore to manually check every page in the log to see if it's still protected. Of late I have periodically tried to make sure that at least the recent protections are all noted on Protected page, but it's not easy to keep up with everyone who's sloppy about adding their protections to that list. --Michael Snow 17:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I finished going through the protection log archives looking systematically for pages in user namespaces, and they should hopefully all be on the list of protected pages now. No guarantees that I didn't miss one or two, and of course I didn't check all the articles that have been protected. Articles usually get tracked better, but there may still be some hiding that aren't listed and nobody realizes they're protected. --Michael Snow 07:03, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gosh, none of that was directed at you, that's why I posted it on Rhobite's page. I said Good job Uc in relation to the attempted censorship of the Talk page which was initiated by Rhobite not me. I'll be moving the comment back, which was not meant for you. I was being a little facetious about the high office thing. Reithy 22:01, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I have been abused, harassed, defamed and attacked by the Administrator Rhobite. This is no excuse for being grumpy with him probably, but I am. He follows every article I write and immediately reverts them. This gets tiresome. Look at the history and you'll see that I am not entirely without merit (or sin! no doubt). Reithy 22:56, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Admins
I believe Gareth Owen has turned down adminship on previous occasions. By the way, did you let DanKeshet know that you nominated him? The instructions indicate you should actually get permission before nominating, though we both know that the creepier the instructions, the less they are read and followed, and that requirement exists more to deal with the "nominate lots of people to make friends so that someone will nominate me back" phenomenon. --Michael Snow 00:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I actually wrote the instructions that one obtain permission before nominating, which everyone has ignored ever since. They were ineffective in dealing with a spate of unsuitably early nominations.  You may de-creep at your convenience.  I thought I had left a message for DanKeshet; thank you for drawing that to my attention..  I believe Gareth is/was a developer and de-admined himself in part because he had never been granted admin status by the community.  We'll see what he wants, I guess.  uc 04:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Gareth hasn't ever been listed on Developer that I can tell, though of course that page only dates from this year, and while I've researched much that was before my time, the history of the development team is not among that. I won't de-creep that particular instruction - a fair number of people do follow it, and I'll settle for partial compliance. It still helps give some would-be nominees a chance to avoid reputation injury, and lets one quote chapter and verse if you have to chew out somebody who manages to make ill-considered nominations anyway. --Michael Snow 06:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Too many nominations
Please, UC, let's have a break in posting new nominations. It isn't a matter of too much work for bureaucrats, it's a matter of people not being able to give adequate consideration to so many nominations at once. Nominations deserve more than cursery consideration. Thanks! Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

UC, I have no quarrel with you and respect your motivation; but this amounts to a change of process. I am not opoosed to having many new admins. Many editors put a lot of time into examining nominees and massive numbers of nominations burden that ability. As to your list, this is fine also, but this kind of list could rapidly grow, and it compromises the democracy of Wikipedia to, in effect, have an "A-List" of proposed candidates right on the RfA page. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll say again I have no quarrel with the quality of your nominations or the nominations themselves, nor with your motives. I've posted a poll on Talk to gauge community sentiment on this. RfA usually is not all that large and your nominations will be every bit as valid in a week or two and editors will have more time to give them the consideration they deserve. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucrat activism
UC, I have no objection to your proposing new admins or certainly not to expressing your opinions about nominations. However, I think you should be aware that you may be compromising your position as Bureaucrat. The tradition (as set (for example) by Angela, who has promoted more than anyone else) is that Bureaucrats should have as much of the appearance of neutrality as possible. This is so that, when a difficult nomination comes up, the community has confidence that the promotion (or removal) is without prejudice. You know, the Caeser's Wife thing. ;-) For my own part, you may notice that I rarely even vote on nominations unless I think it is extremely important to do so. I'm not expecting you to follow that lead, but at a bare minimum, I think you should recuse yourself from making a decision on anyone you've nominated. Kind regards, Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. Is there an expectation that bureaucrats should not propose candidates for adminship?  I hope not, and would oppose such a policy.  There certainly isn't a policy that bureaucrats should refrain from voting on candidates, as many if not all bureaucrats, including you, do so regularly.  I really don't see a problem.  I don't expect to withdraw from all other involvement in RFA merely because I am a "bureaucrat."  Such a policy would be rather like expecting admins to withdraw from writing articles.


 * The fact that I am proposing a number of people at this particular point shortly after joining the "bureaucracy" is mere happenstance, since as you know the nominations have been a direct result of the database analysis that I completed recently for unrelated reasons (namely, better understanding the history of the project). That it turned up so many qualified people who have been overlooked is a surprise to me.


 * I do not have any special plan to promote my own nominees. However, in respect for your wishes, I will be doubly sure to wait for another to perform the promotion even in unanimous cases.  uc 20:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you got the gist of what I was saying. You see, the problem is that it is inherent in promotion that there may be a promotion which is a little dicey and a decision must be made. This has happened several times recently and of course the argument can come up that the Bureaucrat is prejudiced, even though I don't know a single current Bureaucrat who I would describe that way. Editors have more confidence in the Bureaucrat making a close call if he is seen as neutral. The extreme is Angela, who prefers not to make a close call at all but I ran for the post on the basis that I was willing to make close calls and defend them. And you know, some people will make a fuss over anything. One nominee I promoted was complained about even though it was over 80% and recently someone complained because I made reference to a vote being "unanimous" (35/0) because his oppose vote was not counted because he was using an anon IP. The Wikiway is that such people need to be responded to firmly and accurately and as politely as the situation allows.


 * So, no I don't think it is wrong of you to propose nominees, and no, it is not wrong to vote on them. Not at all. But I think it is a good idea not to promote your own nominees because it could have the appearance of a conflict of interest, at least not until enough time has passed that one of the other Bureaucrats has a chance to make the decision, especially if the vote is at all close. So, since you're not inclined to promote your own nominations anyway, we don't seem to have any conflict. I just think it's better that you and I discuss this now, rather than have an unnecessary broil on RfA later.


 * I think I agree with all of that. uc 22:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Declined Nominations
Salve, Uninvited Company! I noticed your list of those who've declined nominations at List of administrators and wonder if I should be listed. In September, I asked Deb to nominate me, she did, I accepted, then I withdrew after strong criticism. Strictly speaking, I did accept, but the nomination was neither supported nor defeated. So should I be on that list? Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 18:00, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Another

 * Thanks, but I'd be a terrible administrator, UC: I have no patience. I'd burn out in a matter of weeks. I'm also out of synch with Wikipedia's natural populist bias. I do believe that some ideas are better than others. I believe in expressing balanced assessments and mainstream points-of-view, without apologetic weaselling. I feel that even drollery and wit are not out of place in some entries. So I have to say "thanks, but no" again. It's still flattering to be asked, though. (See above.) --Wetman 21:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another Still
I am flattered that you would nominate me although I'm not sure why I would warrent it. Where I can read about what the duties would be involved? - Kchishol

And another
I'm not administrator material but thanks for the offer. Geoff/Gsl 21:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Forum for Encyclopedic Standards
I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the The Business and Economics Forum and the Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 03:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adminship
Thanks for the offer. I wouldn't mind if you nominated me; after all, I expected someone to eventually do so (going by the amount of edits I've made, that is). :) As long as I'm not expected to do too much extra work (I'm often busy IRL, but I try to get some work done on this site when I can) I'm fine with being nominated. -- LGagnon 21:42, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

another
I wouldn't mind if you nominated me. -- Zoicon5

Yet another
I think I'll need a little time to find out what's needed for the 'job' (checking the reading list) and seeing if it is compatible with my state of health and -eh- personality. :-) However, the prospect seems tempting, if not for anything else than the convenience of 'professional' rv-capability -- I'm really getting fed up with 'manually' having to revert all kinds of inadvertent or vandalous mis-edits...  --Wernher 00:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I've slept on, and pondered, the issue, and have decided to accept the invitation to be considered for adminship. Too bad categories can't be renamed/moved, though. :-( / :-) --Wernher 05:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

another already
I'm really flattered and all, but I'm not at all sure that I'd have the confidence to use the additional editing powers if I was granted them. It would be a bit like having the right to have babies when you can't have babies... Lee M 01:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Liftarn
Even if I've been here for some time I don't think I've been involved enough for a position as administrator. I have written very few complete articles and have just done a bit of small jobs. If I change my mind I'll let you know, but for the time being I'll have to pass on the offer. // Liftarn

Mulad
Thanks for the consideration, but I already have enough trouble limiting the amount of work I do on Wikipedia (excepting periods when the site is nearly unreachable). Until someone decides to pay me for working on the site or something, I'll just stay a regular user. Thanks. &mdash;User:Mulad (talk) 15:27, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Timc
Thanks a lot for looking at my history. I would accept your nomination for adminship. --timc | Talk 17:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BRG
I'd be happy to be nominated for adminship. Even though I've had some arguments in the past with various Wikipedians, I really enjoy being part of this project. -- BRG 18:50, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

out of table, please
Uc, i dislike being listed as sysop suggestion, without even being asked, I have no desire of being a sysop again and as it is, it looks like i am asking for it. Do not presume to think that everybody, or at least me, want sysopship. Have a nice day, [[:pt:Usuário:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 09:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * And out of your user page too, if you dont mind. [[:pt:Usuário:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 09:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed you from the list on my user page per your request and indicated on the query results that you have declined adminship. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * How about adding User:El C to your list of users who should be made admin? I think that he has been here for around three months. 172 21:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)