Accepted: Yes


UESPA has been active in the community for some time, and is indeed one of our most active members. They are highly consistent in the quality of their edits, and always strive to uphold our standards, and get involved in community discussions - and thus serve as a fine example of a pretty much ideal user. UESPA already does quite a lot of admin-like work neatening up things around the site, so the extra functions admins get would be useful for their day to day editing as well. --8of5 21:01, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 8of5. I'd be honored if you guys decide to bring me aboard as an admin.--Long Live the United Earth 21:33, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
I was toying with the idea of a nomination when i last cleaned up this page but i needed to spend some time on real life stuff in the interim -- i'm thrilled that i wasn't the only one who felt this way, my support for constructive editing history and even communication is an echo of 8's -- Captain MKB 21:44, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
  1. --8of5 21:01, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
  2. --Captain MKB 21:41, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
  3. --The Doctor 07:50, April 11, 2010 (UTC)


Accepted: Yes

Mike unofficially suggested this on Sulfur's user page and I whole heartedly agree. Sulfur is an active member of the community that already does an excellent job upholding our policies and style, so it seems only sensible to make it official. (S)He is also one of our most consistent and level-headed editors, often taking the time to be active in community discussions in a constructive way, and bothering to do the sort of editing clean-up that could be considered tedious. An excellent role-model for all our members. --8of5 16:06, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Note: "He". :) -- sulfur 16:07, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
I concur with 8of5 and think sulfur has been a great member of the wiki. Keep up the good work! :) – Darth Batrus 16:13, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you 8 for getting this one rolling and thanks again to sulfur for fulfilling more than one admin role lately in moderating discussions and technical cleanup. i think these skills speak for themselves. -- Captain MKB 16:28, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
  1. --8of5 16:06, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Darth Batrus 16:13, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Captain MKB 16:28, September 13, 2010 (UTC)



I see a lot of requests for admin task attention from Bell'Orso and this indicates to me that there is an interest in furthering activity in this area of the wiki. Group discussion on the wiki has been on autopilot for some time now, as Sulfur and myself have been editing at what i see as a minimum on the bureaucrat level without too much admin support (although i have even started to feel partially absentee, thus my desire to see responsible admin attention -- with apologies if my absenteeism has caused me to temporarily overlook any other admin necessities or group successes) -- Captain MKB 01:34, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

First off, let me say I do feel honored to be considered for admin status. However, I don't feel like I would be the right person for such a job. I don't go through dozens of pages at a time like Sulfur, just for some link fixes, or keep up with the latest releases like Mike. When I do large batches of edits or even new creations it's always about a topic that currently holds my fancy. I came across the article for the TNG Tech Manual one day (well, I didn't discover it then, I had found it long before, I just followed a link there again) and that's how my edits to phasers, probes and shuttle types came to be. The articles for individuals of the Tomol species I created because I was reading the Seekers novels at the time. Other than that I just check the Recent Changes page every once in a while and see if anything strikes my fancy and I wanna weigh in here or there. Hence only 2 to 5 minor edits a day. And then there's times when I don't feel like doing anything for a week at a time or more. I was just scrolling through my contributions and there's a gap of more than three weeks in September last year. And those requests for moves, mergers, deletions etc. are 1) not that many I don't think and 2) always only about something that is currently bugging me. I don't go perusing the wiki looking for pages that could or should be moved, merged, deleted or whatnot.
TL;DR: Thanks for the vote of convidence, but no thanks. I'd prefer staying an occasional "content creator/fixer" instead of becoming a full-on admin. - Bell'Orso (talk) 10:55, April 12, 2015 (UTC)
Imho, that type of editing behavior is typical for our regulars here, and it's not a bad thing. If you focus on whatever holds your fancy at a time, that makes it your specialty. As an admin, you'll have the power to ensure those articles live up to your (and the wiki's) standards. See yourself as a cop keeping your neighborhood safe and clean. The decision is yours. -- Markonian 12:14, April 12, 2015 (UTC)
I have recently changed my mind about this nomination and would now be willing to accept it, should the community still uphold it. Thank you for your consideration. - Bell'Orso (talk) 02:21, July 13, 2017 (UTC)
I am still in Support of your adminship, Bell'Orso. Kind regards, -- Markonian 15:17, July 21, 2017 (UTC)
Support -- captainmike Wiki-wordmark 01:37, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Markonian 18:08, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
Support--Typhuss999 (talk) 04:56, July 21, 2017 (UTC)
Support--Humanoid21 (talk) 13:15, July 21, 2017 (UTC)


Accepted: Yes


I would like to request that I be considered for admin status. Over the course of the last several years, I have racked up almost 6,000 edits and I think that it's fair to say that the lion's share have been of high quality.

The bulk of my edits over the course of the previous year have been related to the mirror universe, which I adore. Last year, I was shocked to see that the information about them on the Wiki was severely lacking despite its popularity and decided to do what I could to correct that. While I didn't exactly intend to dedicate so much of my free time to editing the Wiki, it became a labour of love and I'd like to think that I've vastly improved the Wiki's mirror universe coverage. That said, my edits have certainly not been confined to mirror universe topics as I've attempted to use my time editing to strengthen the links between the various media in which Star Trek is presented by adding information taken from not only the television series and the novels but the various comic ranges and short story collections in order to make the Wiki's treatment and coverage of the Star Trek universe more coherent as well as more accessible to other editors. Furthermore, I've been primarily concerned with improving existing articles rather than creating new ones.

When it comes to editing, I'm hardworking, methodical, detail orientated and highly proficient when it comes to written English. With no false modesty, I think that I've substantially improved the Wiki's coverage of a previously neglected facet of the Star Trek franchise. I'll leave it up to other users to determine my trustworthiness but I tend to keep an eye on pages being edited by unregistered users and, in so doing, I often correct factual, grammatical and spelling errors. This sometimes necessitates rewriting entire articles.

With respect to the technical side of the Wiki, I have recently recreated several hundred categories in order to better arrange information regarding births and deaths, particularly those of real life people, in order to make such information not only better organised but more accessible. I have also added dozens of pictures to the Wiki over the course of the last year. --GusF (talk) 19:07, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

I have a couple concerns I would like you to address before I vote either way. Looking through your edit history, your contributions seem to come in large bursts and then trail off for a couple months and then pick back up again. Do you believe this pattern will continue in the future? Because this wiki certainly does not need more admins with streaky or minimal editing. Further, you cite your large number of edits, but over 2500 of those edits are from the last month, so that doesn't necessarily constitute a solid history of work.
Also, as an admin, one of your main duties is to uphold the policies of the wiki, but under two months ago I had to undo one of your contributions because the article had been copied from Memory Alpha. One of our more important policies, due to licensing, is the no copying one. With that said, how do you plan on enforcing policy having so recently had issues with it yourself?
None of these are meant to be accusations, I would just like to hear your thoughts before voting either way. Thanks!--Long Live the United Earth (talk) 18:15, August 1, 2013 (UTC)
While I admit that my edits in the past have indeeded tended to come in large bursts and trail off, I certainly intend to continue editing regularly from this point onwards. It's unlikely that I'll be able to rack up 2,500 edits every month or even most months as I've had a lot of free time on my hands lately to be brutally honest but I don't intend to go without editing for up to three months at a time as I have in the past either. Furthermore, the proximity in terms of time of those edits may not constitute a solid history of work but I think that these edits nevertheless illustrate the quality of my work.
I admit that copying the Kryton article from Memory Alpha on that occasion would serve to work against me and the only defence that I can use, once more being brutally honest, was ignorance of the licensing issue. I had seen several articles which seemed to have been copied verbatim from Memory Alpha and incorrectly and perhaps foolishly assumed that such behaviour was acceptable. However, in the intervening two months, I have written and augmented many articles concerning canon characters, concepts, etc. and have never resorted to copying in doing so. While I have occasionally used Memory Alpha articles as a guide in writing or rewriting the corresponding Memory Beta article, I did so with the sole purpose of ensuring that the canon information that I was adding was as correct and factual as it possibly could be. Based on my more recent performance, I don't foresee having a problem enforcing the relevant policy in the future if my application is successful.
I hope that this addresses your concerns to your satisfaction. Please, don't hesitate to raise any other issues with me. I most certainly did not see them as accusations but as what they were: perfectly legitimate and understandable concerns. Thank you very much! --GusF (talk) 22:40, August 1, 2013 (UTC)


  1. support -- Captain MKB 01:44, April 11, 2015 (UTC)


  1. -->


I would like to request that I be considered for admin status, as I have made a number of contributions to this wiki and plan on doing so in the foreseeable future, and I think being an admin would help improve further contributions. Doug86 (talk) 04:15, February 13, 2015 (UTC)


Generally Support : Doug86 edits a lot of necessary revisions to links and coding and such. I've had difficulties in the past discussing reasoning of certain edits with Doug86, but this isnt a huge stopping block to adminship -- i'd just ask that Doug86 be forthcoming, clear and concise if any admin tasks require group discussion, and otherwise ring in my support. -- Captain MKB 01:34, April 11, 2015 (UTC)


I am requesting admin privileges because I realized there are several minor pages with the same content but different names, and there are always one of them having some information that the other doesn't... becoming admin would help me on gathering all content from both pages into just one, and then deleting the other page, making searchs about the specified subject easier and bringing much more detailed results. I usually also take my spare time adding new pages generally related to the Star Trek Online universe.

Site note: Please note that deleting is not the appropriate way to deal with these types of situations. They should be merged, and merged properly as per Help:Merging pages. In the short term, it would be best to indicate the need for this kind of work on the associated talk pages. -- sulfur (talk) 13:59, October 3, 2015 (UTC)
In an additional note, merges and moves like this take a great deal of information gathering and, in a current situation on another talk page, we're having trouble finding the reasoning for at least one move. To gain my support i'd need to see a better understanding of how a name conflict merge/move would be handled by this user, as it is lacking in the current situation. -- Captain MKB 18:45, October 3, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.