Wikipedia:Administrators/Archive1
Archived requests
- Administrator / Bureaucrat / Checkuser / Oversighter
- Rollbacker
- Patroller
- Transwiki Importer
Successful
| User | Date | Tally | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cprompt | 10 January 2004 | N/A | successful adminship |
| SimonMayer and Mero | 19 March 2004 | N/A | successful adminship |
| Tango | 16 April 2004 | 3/0 | successful adminship |
| Netoholic | 9 October 2004 | N/A | successful adminship |
| Netoholic | 22 July 2005 | 4/0 | successful bureaucratship |
| Ricky81682 | 22 July 2005 | 5/0 | successful adminship |
| aflm | 7 January 2006 | 2/0 | successful adminship |
| Blockinblox | 8 February 2006 | 4/0 | successful adminship |
| Freshstart | 13 March 2006 | 5/1 | successful adminship |
| Archer7 | 14 March 2006 | 7/0 | successful adminship |
| Eptalon | 16 November 2006 | 12/0 | successful adminship |
| Billz | 29 August 2006 | 11/2 | successful adminship |
| Tangotango | 8 October 2006 | 13/0 | successful adminship |
| Tdxiang | 31 October 2006 | 14/2 | successful adminship |
| Archer7 | 12 November 2006 | 12/0 | successful bureaucratship |
| Blockinblox | 12 November 2006 | 13/0 | successful bureaucratship |
| PullToOpen | 13 November 2006 | 11/0 | successful adminship |
| TBC | 23 November 2006 | 11/0 | successful adminship |
| PullToOpen | 25 November 2006 | 11/0 | successful adminship |
Not promoted
| User | Date | Tally | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Darrien | 8 May 2004 | N/A | Not promoted |
| Sverdrup | 16 June 2004 | 0/2 | Not promoted |
| Turcottem | 11 March 2005 | 1/2 | Not promoted |
| Marknew | 9 April 2005 | 0/2 | Not promoted |
| Postdlf | 2 May 2005 | N/A | Not promoted |
| Ricky81682 | 14 May 2005 | N/A | Not promoted |
| Thorpe | 13 June 2005 | N/A | Not promoted |
| Phroziac | 12 August 2005 | 1/3 | Not promoted |
| NickGorton | 13 August 2005 | 1/3 | Not promoted |
| Lucky 6.9 | 11 September 2005 | N/A | Not promoted |
| Y0u | 11 October 2005 | 1/1 | Not promoted |
| LBMixPro | 3 December 2005 | 0/1 | Not promoted |
| Hailey C. Shannon | 14 December 2005 | 1/0 | Not promoted |
| Aranda56 | 24 December 2005 | 0/2 | Not promoted |
| Kbrooks | 5 February 2006 | 0/2 | Not promoted |
| Eptalon | 14 March 2006 | 0/2 | Not promoted |
| Keitei | 4 April 2006 | 0/4 | Not promoted |
| Deon555 | 27 May 2006 | 0/5 | Not promoted |
| Sarahgal | 28 May 2006 | 1/2 | Not promoted |
| Freshstart (bureaucratship) | 29 May 2006 | 0/2 | Withdrawn |
| Archer7 (bureaucratship) | 29 May 2006 | 1/2 | Withdrawn |
| Psy guy | 28 June 2006 | 4/2 | Not promoted |
| Ionius Mundus | 24 August 2006 | 4/4 | Not promoted |
| ForestH2 | 20 September 2006 | 6/3 | Closed due to sockpuppetry |
| Vector (bureaucratship) | 12 November 2006 | 1/3 | Withdrawn |
| Netoholic (bureaucratchip & adminship) | 12 November 2006 | 1/8 Crat Rights & 4/5 Admin Rights | Did not regain rights |
| Sir James Paul | 5 December 2006 | 0/5 | Not promoted |
| Sir James Paul | 6 December 2006 | 0/2 | Not promoted |
| J Di | 6 December 2006 | 2/11 | Not promoted |
Inactivity
Cprompt, Menchi, Mero, Optim, Tango
Several adminstrator accounts have been inactive for a very long time. These pose a danger to the wiki because someone may try to guess their password. It can also be confusing for people when they want to seek help from an administrator for more immediate help. I (or any future bureaucrat) will likely have no problem re-instating sysop access if they return and ask. Here is a list I propose for removal.
- Cprompt (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes) - last edit 28 August 2005
- Menchi (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes) - last edit 1 September 2004
- Mero (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes) - last edit 17 April 2004 (recent comment at 3 November 2006)
- Optim (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes) - last edit 6 March 2004
- Tango (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes) - last edit 4 July 2004 (recent comment at 1 November 2006)
Please leave your comments below. -- Netoholic @ 18:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- We should block them. They can unblock themselves. Otherwise, if the consequences are dire, desysopping is necessary. Email them first, if possible.-- Tdxiang @ 10:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, blocking them really wouldn't accomplish much because in the event their pw was compromised, the hacker would have the exact same ability to unblock himself. However, I feel the danger posed by this eventuality is infinitessimally small; and as I have pointed out, if someone was going to play 'guess the password' they might go for the bur., active or no. Since all passwords are unique and have billions and billions of alphanumeric permutations, it is too improbable to bother defending against IMO. Blockinblox 13:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the conception of sysophood as kept on meta.wiki... Sysop-hood is not a lifetime status. Get it if you need it. Keep it if people trust you. Quit it if you do not need it. Lose it if people feel they cannot trust you. Should these people return back to simple.wiki, they can easily re-apply and get admin status back. It is sort of confusing and sometimes can be misleading saying "there are nn administrators", while more than a half can not be seen... I propose that they are de-sysoped, if there is a consensus, but I absolutely do not see any reason for blocking their account. --M7 20:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't de-sysopping a little mean without letting them know? Besides, may they are on a very long wiki-break or something. My decision is to just leave them alone. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 03:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- What we are concerned about is that hackers might abuse these powers, creating problems for us.-- Tdxiang @ 03:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I've been inactive for years, I might come back, but no promises. I am active on en and my email address is up-to-date, so if there are any problems requiring prompt admin action (I came here because I saw such a request on meta), feel free to email me or contact me on my en user page and I'd be happy to help out. I'll put a note to that effect next to my name in the list of inactive admins above. If you want to de-sysop me, I won't object, but I don't think you need to. --Tango 13:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think maybe we should remove User:Tango out of the de-sysop list since he apologizied and provided a way to contact him so no worries. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 01:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't come here too often simply because I'm busy. I guess you could de-sysop me if you think it's necessary. My email address still works, so I can still help out here in other ways. --Mero 10:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think there is not much harm that can be done by these inactive people keeping their admin status; provided they have chosen a decent (hard to guess) password for their account. On the other hand, seeing that they are mostly inactive, I think it would make sense to "demote" them to regular users. When they come back, and start editing again, their admin privs can be restored. --- Eptalon 11:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think there's much harm on the Simple English Wikipedia, which has few edits and only a very small number of administrators. The effect would be larger on the English Wikipedia, where there are thousands of edits a day and over a thousand admins - a single compromised admin account could wreck a lot of annoying damage without anybody noticing. Here, we tend to know what happens if we check New changes. In short, I don't think five inactive admin accounts are worth worrying about. - Tangotango (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Status removed for all five. Jon Harald Søby 17:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)