Wikiquote:Requests for adminship

From Wikiquote
(Redirected from WQ:RfA)
Jump to: navigation, search

Here you can make a request for adminship and other special user rights on English Wikiquote. See Wikiquote:Administrators for what this entails and for a list of current admins.

Instructions

Current English Wikiquote policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Wikiquote contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. Most users seem to agree that the more administrators there are the better.

Administrators should register a valid email address and allow other users to send them messages in preferences, or give an email address on their user page.

If you want to become an administrator, please use the box below, filling out all the required areas and replacing "USERNAME" with your user name. Any user can comment on your request -- they might express reservations (because, for example, they suspect you will abuse your new-found powers, or if you've joined very recently), but hopefully they will approve and say lovely things about you. If this is not your first RfA, put a 2 (or whatever number RfA it may be) after "USERNAME" in the box.

Once you have saved your RfA page, add it to the Nominations for adminship section. Adminship nominations must be posted for at least one week, to provide opportunity for comments and voting, before a bureaucrat will make the promotion if warranted.

For closed votes, see #Past discussions.

Current time is 17:13:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


Votes of confidence

See WQ:VP#Vote of confidence

Restricted access depends on the continued support of the community. This may be tested by a vote of confidence, in which a simple majority (50%+1) must support the user's continued access for it to be retained. (What access a discussion concerns should be explicitly noted in the discussion's introduction.) Any user may propose a vote of confidence, but at least three established users must support the need for one before it can be called.

In the case of a called proposal, the user may not use the restricted access for any non-trivial action at any time until the vote is closed. A bureaucrat will eventually archive the discussion and, if so decided, request removal of restricted access by a steward.

Nominations for adminship

Note: Nominations have to be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, please also leave a message on their talk page and inform them about their listing on this page, and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination. You may nominate yourself (in which case you have automatically accepted the nomination).

Requests for checkuser

These are requests for the right to perform CheckUser actions, not requests that particular actions be performed, those are done on the noticeboard.

Please note that for a request to succeed in this section a minimum of 25 support votes is required in accordance with Meta policy.

Requests for bureaucratship

NB: Discussions in this section should last at least 14 days.


Requests for importing right

The import function allows editors to upload specially formatted text into Wikiquote, or to transwiki such material after it is exported from another Wikimedia project. Only a Meta steward can add or drop any user's importing right. After requests are approved here, they will be reported to m:Steward requests/Permissions.

None currently

Votes of confidence

See #Votes of confidence.


LrdChaos (talk · contributions)

  1. Starting discussion here to remove Admin flag, unfortunately, due to over three (3) years of inactivity.
  2. Zero activity on Wikiquote since 2012 [1]. Also inactive at en.wikipedia [2].
  3. Currently holds Admin flag [3].
  4. User notified via email about query regarding inactivity. DIFF.
  5. Queried about inactivity DIFF, but no response.
  6. I also notified the user at his user talk page on en.wikipedia DIFF.
  7. Please vote with "Remove" or "Keep".

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Vote ends: 2015·02·26 (26 February 2015)

Remove

  • Remove, as nominator, per above. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep

  • Keep – I don't think inactivity is a good enough reason to remove someone's adminship. The likelihood of any account being compromised is almost zero (and, should it happen, it is easily noticed). ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep · I have stated elsewhere, with such a small community, the process of removing adminship for simple lack of activity is not something I find either desirable or necessary. ~ Kalki·· 23:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Note: In this case to sum up we have: No activity for three (3) years, no response to inactivity query on en.wikiquote talk page, en.wikipedia talkpage, or by email. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Notified community at Village Pump. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Iddo999 (talk · contributions)

  1. Starting discussion here to remove Admin flag, unfortunately, due to over four (4) years of inactivity.
  2. Zero activity on Wikiquote since 2010 [4]. Oddly, zero contributions, ever, to English Wikipedia.
  3. Currently holds Admin flag [5].
  4. User notified via email about query regarding inactivity.
  5. Queried by BD2412 about inactivity DIFF, but no response.
  6. I also notified the user at his user talk page on en.wikipedia DIFF.
  7. Please vote with "Remove" or "Keep".

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Vote ends: 2015·02·23 (23 February 2015)

Remove

  • Remove, as nominator, per above. -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove - 4 years of inactivity is probably enough to consider that the editor is not going to return anytime soon. OccultZone (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep

  • Keep – I don't think inactivity is a good enough reason to remove someone's adminship. The likelihood of any account being compromised is almost zero (and, should it happen, it is easily noticed). ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep · I have stated elsewhere, with such a small community, the process of removing adminship for simple lack of activity is not something I find either desirable or necessary. ~ Kalki·· 23:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Note: In this case to sum up we have: No activity for four (4) years, no response to inactivity query by BD2412. And, oddly, zero contributions, ever, to English Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Threaded discussion moved to talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Village Pump notified, with link to this discussion page. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

MosheZadka (talk · contributions)

  1. Starting discussion here to remove Admin flag, unfortunately, due to over four (4) years of inactivity.
  2. Zero activity on Wikiquote since 2010 [6]. Also inactive on Wikipedia since 2010 [7].
  3. Currently holds Admin flag [8].
  4. No email enabled as required by admins, see: Special:EmailUser/MosheZadka.
  5. Queried by BD2412 about inactivity DIFF, but no response, and no way to email user a notification.
  6. I also notified the user at his user talk page on en.wikipedia DIFF.
  7. Please vote with "Remove" or "Keep".

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Vote ends: 2015·02·16 (16 February 2015)

Remove

  • Remove, as nominator, per above. -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove say zero activity since 2007. OccultZone (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove. The lack of email ices it. (My opinion is that admins should always be accessible through email; obviously, they are not obligated to respond by email, and many will choose to respond on-wiki.). --Abd (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove, inactive and no email to contact them on. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove, no email, and lengthy period of disengagement cross wiki. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥ 16:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep

  • Keep – I don't think inactivity is a good enough reason to remove someone's adminship. The likelihood of any account being compromised is almost zero (and, should it happen, it is easily noticed). ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Ningauble, Kalki, and DanielTom. Mdd (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep · I have stated elsewhere, with such a small community, the process of removing adminship for simple lack of activity is not something I find either desirable or necessary. ~ Kalki·· 23:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • DanielTom, Mdd, and Kalki, I would ask you to consider this case as different from the other recent de-adminship requests, as this is the only one where the admin does not have an e-mail contact, leaving no way to even ping him for information. In most wikis, it is a bottom-line requirement that admins have e-mail activated. BD2412 T 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Agree with BD2412, however in this case and the other cases, the admins haven't even bothered to respond to the email notification or indeed any of the notifications by BD2412, myself, and others. -- Cirt (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Agree with Pmlineditor to support discussing on framing some sort of inactivity policy. -- Mdd (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
          • I am certainly willing to consider this additional aspect of the situation as one which might be properly specified in drawing up any properly formalized criteria for suspension or removal of admin privileges in the future, but am really still inclined to believe that the urgency and priority which have been given such matters recently to be a bit overblown. I see little need for swift or sudden action on it, and believe that there are numerous things of greater immediate importance to be addressed here. ~ Kalki·· 00:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
            • Going through this kind of vote once a year for people who have not been active cross wiki seems sensible to me. And after doing it for a few years, then this community will be in a better position to write and support a guideline because people will have thought through the way it would work and the ramifications of the process. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥ 17:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
              • Thank you, FloNight, most appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Note: In this case to sum up we have: No activity for four (4) years, no email listed at Special:EmailUser/MosheZadka, and no response to inactivity query from four days ago. I tried emailing the user at the email listed here. -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Update: Discussion open since 9 February 2015. Two (2) users commented for "Remove", and no other comments. -- Cirt (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't see how this can be closed as representing any consensus of the community with only two editors weighing in. I would suggest keeping it open a while longer. BD2412 T 23:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
      • It's been open 11 days. I suppose a few more days can't hurt. -- Cirt (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I would not do this for one such request, but if a series of these accumulate, there could be a site-message pointing to a combined discussion. On the other hand, we should have routine procedure for inactivity removal, and the procedure would provide that an unopposed request could be actioned without prejudice ('crat discretion, and any crat can undo that later, if there was a problem). The request would be made here, and the lack of objection in the prescribed period would be enough to go ahead, ad-hoc. These should all be kept simple. If there ever is a controversy, the process should be announced by a wider notice, such as site-message or at least the Pump. --Abd (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Village Pump notified, with link to this discussion page. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Jaxl (talk · contributions)

  1. Starting discussion here to remove Admin flag, unfortunately, due to over seven (7) years of inactivity.
  2. Zero activity on Wikiquote since 2008 [9]. Also inactive on Wikipedia since 2006 [10].
  3. Currently holds Admin flag [11].
  4. Please vote with "Remove" or "Keep".

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Vote ends: 2015·02·11 (11 February 2015)

Remove

  • Remove, as nominator, per above. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove, for this wiki to survive the next 10 years, it needs an active group of admins..--Stemoc 04:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove and support discussing on framing some sort of inactivity policy. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom and evidence of inactivity. OccultZone (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep

  • Keep – I don't think inactivity is a good enough reason to remove someone's adminship. The likelihood of any account being compromised is almost zero (and, should it happen, it is easily noticed). ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Ningauble, Kalki, and DanielTom. -- Mdd (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep · I have not had time to attend to many matters here much lately, but as I have stated elsewhere, with such a small community, the process of removing adminship for simple lack of activity is not something I find either desirable or necessary. ~ Kalki·· 23:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Note: I've notified the user via: Posts to their user talk page both here on Wikiquote and on en.wikipedia, and also sent them a notification via email. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't disagree, but I would recommend in the future that these notices be made a week or so before any inactivity discussion is initiated. We're not in a great rush with these. BD2412 T 01:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Jaxl was queried about inactivity over seven (7) years ago. -- Cirt (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Still, can't hurt to give it a week. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Heh, I guess seven (7) years, plus one week, is okay. -- Cirt (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – As I remarked in a recent case, I do not think this is a good way to use the vote of confidence process. It would be better to establish a policy requiring current activity, if that is the sense of the community, rather than picking off selected individuals for putative truancy. I am not voting "remove" or "keep" as the question has been framed because I oppose the process and the nomination. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    • But Wikiquote doesn't have such a policy. We have this process, for this purpose. -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Note: Additional threaded discussion with back-and-forth replies, moved to talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Update: Discussion open since 5 February 2015. Four (4) users commented for "Remove", and one neither Remove/Keep, commented with "Oppose". -- Cirt (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Village Pump notified, with link to this discussion page. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Requests for flag removal

This section is used for notification (and comment) only. To be effective, it should go to m:Steward requests/Permissions#Removal of access. Requests by the community will occur as #votes of confidence.

Current administrators

Administrators are marked with "(Sysop)" in the list of user accounts, bureaucrats with "(Bureaucrat)" and checkusers with "(Checkuser)". For information on administrators and bureaucrats, see Wikiquote:Administrators.

If you need to contact an administrator, post a message on WQ:AN or on the talk page of one or several of the userpages below. Administrators can also be contacted privately by using the "email this user" link on the page, if you have registered an email address of your own.

An automatically generated list of current administrators is available here.

The following users currently have sysop privileges on the English Wikiquote:

  1. Abramsky (en)
  2. Aphaia (ja, en-3, de-2, fr-1, it-1) (bureaucrat) (inactive)
  3. BD2412 (en, fr-1, zh-CN-1) (bureaucrat)
  4. Cbrown1023 (en, es-2, zh-1) (inactive)
  5. Cirt (en, es-2)
  6. EVula (en) (bureaucrat)
  7. FloNight (inactive)
  8. Fys
  9. Iddo999 (inactive)
  10. Illegitimate Barrister (en)
  11. Jaxl (inactive)
  12. Jeff Q (en, fr-2, de-2, es-1; will try to make sense of & reply in other languages)
  13. jni (inactive)
  14. Jusjih (zh, en-3, fr-1) (import)
  15. Kalki
  16. LrdChaos (inactive)
  17. Mdd (nl, en-3, de-2, fr-1)
  18. Miszatomic (en)
  19. MosheZadka (inactive)
  20. Ningauble (en) (mostly inactive)
  21. Pmlineditor (bn, en-4, hi-3, most languages written in Indic script at 0.5/1 level)
  22. Rmhermen (inactive)
  23. Sketchmoose (en, la-2)
  24. UDScott (en) (bureaucrat)
  25. Ubiquity (inactive)


Past discussions