Wikireligion:Requests for adminship

From Wikireligion

Revision as of 11:49, 19 March 2007 by RyGuy (Talk | contribs)

Trying in a Rfa is the first step in becoming a sysop here at wikireligion. Rfa's last for about one month. To become a sysop you need 75% of the votes to be support and over 4 people need to vote. After passing, you get the tools and you are assigned a sysop to watch over you. If after a month he thinks you are doing good you will become a permanent sysop as long as you follow policies. If he does not think you are doing good enough you are assigned another sysop, this can happen up to three times. If the sysop does not think you are ready you are only a temporary admin, meaning you have the tools for three months. It will usualy take you one and a half months to become a sysop but may take up to two and a half. See here for your format for your request.


Put your name below the line to start an RfA.

Contents

P.B. Pilhet (talk • contribs)

  • Note: I'd like to become a sysop here to help fight vandalism as much as possible; I'm already a sysop on three other sites (not counting my own wiki): WikiChristian (admin/bureaucrat), Compass Wiki (admin/bureaucrat), and the Christianity Knowledge Base (admin).
  • Tally: 3/0/0
  • End Date: Ends 19:51, 15 April 2007
    • Comment Can you edit an article or create an article here or do a little editing before your adminship? I wouldn't like to see you leave because of not becoming an admin but to be an admin it would nice to have some contributions here. ForestH2 17:08, 15 March 2007 (EST)
Mainly what I like to do is keep wiki's free of vandalism and spam; I've never been much of an "article contributor," neither on Wikipedia nor any of the sites I've listed above. James asked me if I would like to come help out the wiki he had set up, and since vandal-fighting is how I'd like to help, that's the reason I'm requesting adminship: to combat vandalism as effectively as I could. Whether I actually become a sysop or not will not deter me from helping this wiki out (I won't leave, trust me); but it will determine how effectively I can help the site. Speaking of contributing, though, I do have a policy that I would like to propose... P.B. Pilhet 17:24, 15 March 2007 (EST)
  • Support Are you running for bureaucrat too? ForestH2 18:17, 15 March 2007 (EST)
No, I'm not running to be a bureaucrat as well, as that's not needed to fight vandals. There seem to be plenty of crats around right now to handle that position. I'll run for bureaucratship in the future if I think I should, but otherwise just being a plain-old sysop is fine. Thanks for the support! P.B. Pilhet 19:07, 15 March 2007 (EST)


  • Support I have seen him a lot on wikipedia and a little on wikichristian and he seems very civil and trustworthy. --Sir James Paul 17:32, 17 March 2007 (EST)

RyGuy (talk • contribs)

  • Note: Running for re-election to confirm adminship and bureucratship
  • Tally: 2/0/0
  • End Date: Ends 13:31, 8 April 2007


  • Support ForestH2 22:45, 13 March 2007 (EST)
  • Support There is no reason for me not to support this person. --Sir James Paul 19:21, 17 March 2007 (EST)

Sir James Paul (talk • contribs)

  • Note: Running for re-election to confirm adminship
  • Tally: 3/2/0
  • End Date: Ends 13:31, 8 April 2007


  • Support - Should be given a second chance. -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 08:31, 8 March 2007 (EST)
  • Strong Oppose - indef blocked AntiChrist in violation of Wikireligion:Blocking policy - Sir James has a LONG history of abusing his admin powers. JesusFreak 09:19, 8 March 2007 (EST)
    • Comment He has been warned a few times already. That person has been trolling this place for a long time. I will unblock him and give him 1 more chance. :) --Sir James Paul 20:21, 8 March 2007 (EST)
  • Strong Support I looked into things and I found out the basic problem is Seven of nine is out of control and harrasing people and Sir James Paul is just doing a fine job and there's no reason to go netural for him. ForestH2 10:49, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Who should be blocked? And what does "inappropriateness of adminship" mean as a reason? Seven of nine 17:26, 9 March 2007 (EST)
  • Oppose Sir James has a LONG HISTORY of abusing admin powers, lack of judgement, etc, etc. Seven of nine 17:23, 9 March 2007 (EST)
    • Comment It is okay to work out of policies here and at wikipedia if you see that it is fit to. It is not abuse to work outside of policies in most cases. Besides me blocking you over a month ago I have not abused my power. When it was pointed to me that one of my moves was not good I changed it. That is not abuse. --Sir James Paul 17:34, 9 March 2007 (EST)
  • Support James is a good guy, and I'm sure he's learned from any mistakes he's made in the past. -- P.B. Pilhet 14:46, 15 March 2007 (EST)

ForestH2 (talk • contribs)

  • Note: Running for re-election to confirm adminship and become a bureaucrat
  • Tally: 1/1/0
  • Ending Date: Ends 15:49, 26 March 2007
  • Oppose - not much better than Sir James, really Seven of nine 17:25, 9 March 2007 (EST)
  • Mild Support - Has been responding to comments lately in a rude way, but still should be given a chance. -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 13:29, 15 March 2007 (EST)
I will be nicer. I am just very upset at some things right now. ForestH2 17:07, 15 March 2007 (EST)
Understandable, just try not to take it out on everyone here. ;-) -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 06:48, 19 March 2007 (EST)
Retrieved from "http://72.14.177.54/wikireligion/Wikireligion:Requests_for_adminship"
Personal tools