Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive of discussion around June-August 2003. Any new comments should be posted on the actual talk page. Quote from here if necessary.
Contents |
you can't third a motion
Look I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but you can't third a motion. Nor can you fourth or fifth it. :) It goes discussion → motion → second → those in favour → those against. -- Party pooper 08:49 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Who says we can't? The comittee police? I move that the expressions "thirded" fourthed" etc be made legit on wikipedia. Will someone second the motion? Party lover 09:11, 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I'm going to skip a step and third it, it seems appropriate enough. And now, if you'll excuse me, I'll take a fifth. -- Party animal 19:14 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
-
- A fifth sounds good, make mine a scotch. -- Party party!
-
-
- I don't know if we have any scotch around here, I'm pretty sure we can find some Irish, though. But five of them? I dunno about that. -- Party animal 19:25 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- ROFL -- Third party 23:15, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
-
-
I will now perform a legal motion which I will second , third, fourth, fifth, and be for :) *starts dancing around* ilyanep 15:18 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Two sections
Shouldn't there be two sections for nominations? We have two types of nominations; self nominations and nominations made by others (both are followed by "seconds"). The reason I think it is a good idea to separate the two is that nominations made by others need to be accepted by the nominee before anything happens. No big deal though. --mav 00:35, 23 Jun 2003
- That makes sense; having spent a lot of time on talkers and MUDs and the like, I know quite a few people who, having been nominated for adminnery, wished to not become one. Phil Bordelon 00:40 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Is seconding a nomination for admins only, or can anyone do it? -- Jim Regan 00:44 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
-
- That's actually a question worth answering and putting on the 'real' page of this. Phil Bordelon 00:45 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- It has now been answered on the main page; anyone may agree or disagree with a nomination or request. Thanks, Eloquence. Phil Bordelon 00:57 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
-
Sysop no. 100
We have 99 sysops. Does #100 get a prize? Or at least a mention in Wikipedia:Announcements? -- Tim Starling 08:02 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- A prize, yes... Daily inspection of Votes for Deletion twice and RecentChanges ten times for two months. --Menchi 14:56 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Where is the archive
Hi, I can't find the nominations before 15:17, 14 Jun 2003 . Where are they moved to, or are they deleted? Fantasy 10:02, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Removed - check the version history.—Eloquence
-
- OK, it's me who has a problem with deleting things. I think it is part of Wikipedia so this things should not be removed. But if that is the current policy, I will at least save my part on my User-page... schade... Fantasy 13:00, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- Just to clarify - as is suggested below, we didn't have this page until June 14, 2003. Before that, virtually all sysop requests were made via the WikiEN-L Mailing list (or the Wikipedia-L list before the WikiEN-L list was established). --Camembert 23:06, 15 Aug 2003
-
I was looking for the Adminship of User:172, to understand the discussion better. Is it somewhere, I can not find it in the history... Fantasy 20:40, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- He got it before this system was established. His nomination or self-nomination (I don't know which) occurred on the Mailing list or some obscure place on Wikipedia. He received some but not much opposition (only Mav if I'm correct). --Menchi 20:45, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
-
- No, it was more than one person to oppose him being a sysop. Read http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003150.html, and the e-mails around that time. マイカル (MB) 20:54, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- Jimbo Wales decided to overrule these concerns. --—Eloquence 23:09, 15 Aug 2003
-
Discussion of 172 moved to Wikipedia:Adminship of 172 -- Stevertigo 20:54, 15 Aug 2003
