Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 11
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. |
Policy on Anons and this page
I have boldly modified the policy here, so that anons cannot be made administrators (duh) and anons cannot nominate others (new). Of course, we believe in preknowledge of the law, so Wik's current nomination can stand, for what it's worth. But from here on out, I propose anons not be part of the process of voting/nominating here. Fuzheado 05:32, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Support. ;) A long time coming, I think, since it stops not only anon trolls from nominating (and thus reduces clutter) and stops sock puppets... Dysprosia 05:33, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
- And Pumpie. Maximus Rex 05:35, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Support in part, Oppose in part. If you can nominate yourself, why can't an anon nominate you? As for anons not being made administrators, duh. -- Anthony DiPierro 05:36, 9 Feb 2004
- Anons obviously cannot be administrators as there is no password involved. I think anons should be able to nominate anyone. silsor 05:39, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC) 05:49, 9 Feb 2004
-
- Just noticed the voting clause. Anons should definitely be allowed to vote, there are some excellent regular contributors who have just never bothered to log in. silsor
- I think anons should be allowed to nominate. If you want we can have a number of edits minimum though. Dori | Talk 05:46, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- The problem with anons voting/nominating is that you cannot verify that it is even an individual (proxy server, dynamic IPs, etc.) so it's pretty useless to have anons involved in any meaningful way. This means you cannot even qualify them using the "Sock Puppet Avoidance Threshold". Fuzheado 05:59, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
- I'd vote in favor of restricting nominations to logged in users. -- Infrogmation 06:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Without commenting on a general principle of anonymous users nominating people, I've removed this particular nomination, as the user's history reveals a good deal of general troublemaking. Update: and he's just now been banned for vandalizing other articles. --Delirium 06:44, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think the nomination should have been removed, as it was supported by some people. That it was supported may show some people that that the user is supported by more people than they may imagine, although the peer pressure is to damn him. Secretlondon 07:52, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
-
- It clearly says "Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nor can they nominate others. The absolute minimum requirement to be involved with adminship matters is to have a username in the system." Which part of that are you saying we should ignore, the nominating part or just the voting part or all of it? Morwen 08:03, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- I didn't see that bit - I just saw a reversion war with the what feels like a cabal sometimes. Secretlondon 08:05, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Oops. Morwen 18:22, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
Before we get into a massive edit war here, let me remind contributors that any logged-in user can make a nomination. We don't actualy need to settle the "can an anon nominate" question right away as, for a nomination to be successful, there must be a clear consensus in favour if the user in question. That requirement, in turn, necessitates that a reasonable number of regular (i.e., logged-in) Wikipedins vote in favour of the nominee, and that suggests that at least one of those Wikipedians ought to be prepared to make a nomination. In other words, if the nomination is meaningful in the first place, sooner or later a logged-in user will make it. Tannin 07:56, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- PS: In other words, if a logged-in user cares to make a nomination (of Wik or of anyone else) then I would support retaining it. Tannin
But I now know I'll get lynched for it.... Secretlondon 07:59, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
