Wikiquote:Requests for adminship

From Wikiquote
(Redirected from WQ:VOC)
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.


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 08:53:31, 6 May 2018 (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).

Koavf (talk · contributions)

  • I would like to nominate myself as an admin an en.wq. I think I could help here with maintenance and have ideas about how to radically improve the site. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Vote ends: 2018-02-15

@UDScott: Can you please close this? Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


  • Support. Justin has been around this site for many years and has always fought against vandalism and other issues. I view him as a conscientious and dedicated member of our community and I believe we could benefit from having him as another admin (and we definitely need more admins as there are so few that remain active these days). ~ UDScott (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Justin is certainly a trusted user, though I have concerns about the sporadic activity. Noting the lack of active admins, this is a definite issue, unless his activity picks up after being granted adminship. hiàn 04:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment/Inquiry: I was at the start somewhat inclined to support this self-nomination, despite relatively sparse or sporadic activity in the past, as you seem generally inclined to be helpful. After reviewing some edits I was reminded of a few relatively minor reasons to refrain from doing so, which I yet remained inclined to overlook and let pass, because whatever strong disagreements I might have had with a few of your past assessments and assertions, I don’t currently consider them extreme enough to make any active objections, and remain slightly inclined to support the nomination. I yet believe some explication of your "ideas about how to radically improve the site" would probably be appropriate before the making any final decision upon the matter. ~ Kalki·· 07:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Kalki: Fair. In short, I think the the first immediate change I would like to see is a shift toward a Structured Wikiquote. This will make it dramatically easier to share quotations between language projects, store durable citations, and give context to quotations. I've tried to experiment with this on test.d but haven't made any real headway. In a longer term, I think that it would benefit the community here to 1.) be the focus of more outreach since the community is smaller and the site is far less confusing than (e.g.) Wikipedia and 2.) to find some way of marketing or branding where we can pair quotations with images from c: to have on-demand user-generated gear (t-shirts or coffee mugs) with proceeds going to the WMF and specifically putting money toward the Wikiquote communities. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I have very little interest or objection to any marketing projects which might be developed by anyone for the Wikimedia Foundation, but I actually have much less regard and some repugnance for the database concept being proposed. I would not object to it being developed as a separate option, but truly have no enthusiasm for the idea, and don’t believe it is all that easily workable or desirable. Such a project might be called a "QuoteBase" or something along those lines — but from my perspectives it isn't actually much of a wiki, and should certainly not replace the present project nor ursurp the Wikiquote name. If it is ever developed to any extent perhaps a designation such as "Wikimedia Quotebase" or something similar would be appropriate. Your apparent enthusiasm for such a format doesn’t preclude my support for your nomination as an admin here — but I certainly do not wish to see this project transformed into that one, nor entirely displaced by it. ~ Kalki·· 08:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Kalki: Sure. Nor would an admin on en.wq have the authority or ability to unilaterally make any of those changes. In that respect, it's pretty harmless to give me advanced permissions. My only point in bringing it up above was simply that I've thought about the site, how it operates, and how it could operate. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I can support this admin nomination, and can even accept potential development of an experimental auxiliary project of such character as has been indicated above, despite having no actual enthusiasm for it. I am not likely to ever become very involved in such, if it ever is developed — but I will restate that I certainly have no wish to see the wiki project which Wikiquote has been transformed into or replaced by any such "database format" project, which I perceive to be in many ways far more problematic, and far less appealing overall. I would strongly oppose those sort of efforts. ~ Kalki·· 10:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

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

Past discussions