Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 2

User:172's comment on adminship
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) -- 172 01:59, 29 Aug 2003

de-adminship
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)


 * 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)


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

What happened to User:Pakaran's nomination?
What happened to Pakaran's nomination? It's been deleted from the page and there's no link to new admins. RickK 06:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)~


 * Recently_created_admins. --Menchi 06:53, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * There is a link, it's always been there, right above the "Requests for adminship" subheading. He's also listed on Administrators and there's a message on his talk page telling him he's an admin. -- Tim Starling 07:04, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

Concern... no lag time?

 * 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 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)

Seven day delay proposed

 * I don't know that we've ever had a policy of a certain amount of time on the page before granting adminship, but I think a required delay of say 7 days might be a good idea, just to give time in case someone has something relevent to say about a nominee that others voting here might not be aware of. -- Infrogmation 18:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good point. A certain delay would make sure everyone who wants to weigh in is heard from. Seven days would seem about right to me. -- Viajero 23:55, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * OK. I usually leave it for a bit longer, but since I was doing 6 at once I got a bit careless. -- Tim Starling 01:49, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * Most of the people I nominated waited for like over 2 weeks. --Menchi 02:21, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Tim, could you be careless just one more time and move me :-)? (I'm just kidding...) ugen64 20:43, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)