Wikipedia talk:Administrators

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Gertjan R. in topic Inactive sysops

Qualities desirable for administratorsEdit

I have read many of the contributions and discussions by User:Belgian man on this Wikipedia and one or two others. He is a very good, responsible contributor. I vote we keep him as a permanent Administrator. Robin Patterson 08:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for that compliment! I didn't know that I was so good :-). If you want you can list yourself (also for other users of course) here as a candidate. But I cannot make you admin because I'm not a bureaucrat. Belgian man 21:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, I want be a permanent "sysop", maybe also a bureaucrat (not yet) so I can make Users into new Admins. In my opinion, the requirements for being an admin ("sysop") are:
    • be a registered user with a userpage,
    • put one's candidature here,
    • of course, be vandalismless,
    • in the last 50 contributions may be maximum one break of six days or more,
    • speak, or confidently write, (at least) a couple of words in Nauruan.
For a bureaucrat, one of course must be a sysop + same requirements. A bureaucrat is somebody who can make a sysop into a bureaucrat (and a user into a sysop).
Note: That's all MY opinion, if you have another meaning about requirements, easy say it...
Belgian man 17:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(Rearranged a little above for clarity.) I don't see the need for such "continuous" activity: I would not include the "maximum one break of six days or more" as a requirement. If we have several admins, each of whom contributes well when editing, it does not matter if not all visit the site often. If there are periods of several days when no admin has visited, it may be time to create another admin.
As my main concern is the Wikipedia Maori, I do not put myself forward as admin here. Robin Patterson 21:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK. I'll make the page Wikipedia:Admin. That's a page where the explanation of the functions and rights, and the requiries will be for the adminship. OK? Later, maybe I will make pages Wikipedia:Steward, Wikipedia:Bureaucrat, Wikipedia:Bot and Wikipedia:Developer. Ekamwawir omo, Belgian man 22:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Do you like my contributions at the outline of Wikipedia:Administrators or not? Belgian man 17:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Very good idea, in principle. Order seems a bit mixed; I (or someone else) may create some more headings to collect similar subheadings. Robin Patterson 21:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Time for the votingEdit

Hi everybody,
which time do you prefer for a voting here? I would say: a month; and if there are no votes after a month, again and again two weeks. I would mention the end-date and the start-date then by each voting. Belgian man 22:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's OK. I'd agree. -- CdaMVvWgS 23:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Inactive sysopsEdit


on the sysop list I see that User:Meibitobure is sysop while

  • he never requested this status
  • he don't meet the criterias because he never edited any article
  • he just edited here during 9 days
  • his last edit was done in september 2005

I also note that user:CdaMVvWgS's last edit was in april 2006, and user:Node ue's one in february 2006 (except an interwiki update in august 2010).

So only one admin is active and then can apply this Wikipedia consensus with his tools.

I think you should consider updating your policy about special status, to define removal of flag conditions.


--Hercule 19:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are completely right, I will have a look at it later. Greetings, Gertjan R. 07:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to the project page "Administrators".