Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Archives/2015

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: There is a clear consensus to remove administrator rights due to inactivity and failure to provide e-mail contact ability.. BD2412 T 23:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nanobug (talk · contributions)[edit]

  1. Starting discussion here to remove Admin flag, unfortunately, due to over eight (8) years of inactivity.
  2. Zero activity on Wikiquote since 2006 [1]. Also inactive on Wikipedia since 2006 [2].
  3. Currently holds Admin flag [3].
  4. Back in 2007, notified by Aphaia of new admin policy requiring email enabled DIFF, but zero response as of seven (7) years later.
  5. Queried by BD2412 three days ago 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) 11:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote ends: 2015·02·15 (15 February 2015)

Remove[edit]

Keep[edit]

Comments[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: Request granted.

InvisibleSun (talk · contributions)[edit]

  1. Zero activity on Wikiquote since 2010 [4]. Also inactive on Wikipedia [5].
  2. Currently holds both Bureaucrat and Admin flags [6].
  3. Starting discussion here to remove both Bureaucrat and Admin flags, unfortunately, due to over four (4) years of inactivity.
  4. Please vote with "Remove" or "Keep".

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote ends: 2015·02·04 (4 February 2015)

Remove[edit]

User responded below, but indicates likelihood of continued inactivity. So my vote remains the same. To be clear, this is not about any improper behavior, only inactivity. --Abd (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep[edit]

  • Keep – I have complete trust in this excellent contributor, and see no reason to remove his adminship, should he ever wish to return. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I am also not prone to reduce the numbers of those who have proven themselves generally good, respectable admins here, even if they haven't been active here, or even seem unlikely to return. I certainly don’t seek to close doors of opportunity on those generally respectful of others. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – In the absence of any indication that the account has been compromised, and because we are an active community with an active recall procedure for handling problems that may arise, I do not believe it is necessary or useful to debar people just because they have been absent for a while. The following points may serve to explain the basis for my opinion:
Background:  There is a global policy for Admin activity review, whereby Stewards remove the rights of accounts that have been inactive for two years on wikis that do not have processes to review holders of advanced administrative rights. Wikiquote has been exempted from this global review [7] because it has and uses a local recall process at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship#Votes of confidence. I concur with the Steward's policy that when there is an effective recall process in place it is not necessary impose arbitrary time limits.
Example:  Administrator FloNight recently returned after an absence of more than two years (33 months[8][9]). One of her first actions upon returning was to rectify a mistake that I had recently made, for which I am grateful. I believe that had FloNight been "timed out" for inactivity it would have been a detriment to Wikiquote.
Case in point:  It is not entirely clear to me why InvisibleSun has been singled out for a vote of confidence. I have every bit as much confidence in InvisibleSun as in other administrators who have been absent even longer. I have the highest respect for InvisibleSun, and would greatly welcome his return.
Process:  I do not think this is a good way to use the vote of confidence process. The general proposition that unused rights should expire might be offered as a policy proposal (as was suggested last year without gaining much traction) rather than asking the community to declare a lack of confidence in any individual.
To be frank, I have more confidence in InvisibleSun than in an active administrator who has had rights revoked for cause at a larger wiki. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ningauble:InvisibleSun was "singled out" because he is both an admin and also a Bureaucrat, and the only Bureaucrat to be inactive for over four (4) years. -- Cirt (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Comment: It may also be a security risk to allow dormant accounts that have been inactive for over two (2) years to have access to Admin or Bureaucrat flags or other advanced permissions. -- Cirt (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this comment. A long-inactive editor is unlikely to be taking steps to safeguard access to their account. BD2412 T 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There can and should be two kinds of desysop procedures. One would be without prejudice, and under this procedure, rights are removed but may be routinely recovered with a summary process (i.e., one that does not require supermajority, but only absence of objection or majority). Removal for inactivity should be that kind. The other kind is removal with prejudice, i.e., resignation under a cloud or discussed removal. Setting this up would, then, avoid dispute as we see here.
  • There might even be two kinds of summary removal: one that is equivalent to a resignation, and that can be returned immediately on request, and one that is for long-term absence. One year, say, removal with ready renewal. Four years, we'd want to make sure the returning sysop knew current practices. --Abd (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the Remove voters, I'd be horrified if this were taken as any kind of accusation of improper behavior. This is a removal only for inactivity, not for any kind of reprehensibility. Thanks, InvisibleSun, for showing up and acknowledging your inactivity and likely continuation of that, and best wishes with whatever you do. --Abd (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: Application withdrawn by nominator.

Eurodyne (talk · contributions)[edit]

Dear community,

I'm here today to request adminship. I've been editing Wikiquote as part of SWMT and am actively tagging pages for deletion and reverting vandalism. I recently got into (minor) content and gnome work, adding images to articles, adding categories to articles, etc. I only have about 160 edits here mainly reverts and image additions. I am a cross-wiki editor, (part of SWMT and have edits on over 700 wikis) and have the admin flag on the Simple English Wiktionary.

I'm requesting adminship due to the high level of vandalism here. The English Wikiquote is not a global sysop wiki and most of the time, users have to ping the stewards to block an abusive user when no admins are online or idling on IRC. I always watch the RC and am on IRC most of the day. I will continue my gnome work and always be active in countervandalism tasks. Plus, "Most users seem to agree that the more administrators there are the better." :P Thanks for your consideration! Eurodyne (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Self nomination

Vote ends: 2 February 2015

Support[edit]

Oppose[edit]

Comments[edit]

Cirt, of course! I did have issues on enwiki many months ago however, these issues have cleared up and are not problematic today. I originally had an account Akifumii which was not really here to build an encyclopedia. I then disclosed I would be switching accounts to Xermano and right then was when things got messy. On my first Akifumii account, I lied about the languages I spoke. I then switched identities on enwiki with Xermano and claimed I was a Hungarian native. Obviously this was a bunch of bullshit and I was playing Wikimedia as a game. After blocked on Xermano, I disclosed through the UTRS system that I had a "fresh start" account Umafiy (which was later renamed to FuzzyDice and then to Eurodyne). This account was blocked and that was when I decided to change greatly. I contributed mainly to simplewiki at the time and attained the sysop flag on simplewikt. I then got involved in xwiki work and recently did some GA and DYK work on enwiki. I believe I have changed —This unsigned comment is by Eurodyne (talk • contribs) .
Okay, can we get more of an explanation about the more recent blocks under the current "Eurodyne" account ? -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, you may. As I said in my previous comment, I wanted a fresh start on this account (formerly known as Umafiy and FuzzyDice) and told UTRS that I would be operating under this new account. I didn't think of block evasion at the time and didn't even really know much about it. Sure enough, I was blocked here on this account and then decided to edit other projects for a good 2 months. The "email harrasment" part of my block was a misunderstanding IMO. I've had troubles with OhanaUnited in the past. I emailed OhanaUnited from enwiki's Special:EmailUser feature asking for an unblock on specieswiki. Just a little background info, at the time I was blocked on species, I hadn't even made one single edit there. Having had troubles with this user in the past, he decided to change my block settings and disable my email user button. I was later unblocked by DeltaQuad the next month or so. If anything is confusing or unclear, please let me know. Eurodyne (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Cirt emailed me asking that I come give some background on Eurodyne's enwikipedia history. The history as Eurodyne tells it above is fairly accurate: using the account Akifumii/Xermano, he lied about his expertise in order to get more advanced user rights (supposedly on a dare from friends). He was caught, reported to the Administrators' Noticeboard on enwiki, and indefinitely blocked in August of 2014 for "egregious deception". The same day he was indefinitely blocked, he created a new account and began editing again as user:Umafiy. The next day, he submitted an unblock request on IRC for his Xermano account; the appeal was declined and he was directed to appeal to the Arbitration committee if he wished to continue. Instead, he then submitted an appeal to the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS), as Xermano, and mentioned that he had already started a new account. I declined that appeal blocked his new account, as he was using it to evade a block.

He then began emailing me and other administrators, continuing to request unblocking (the on-wiki result of one of those emails can be seen at this diff). When I indicated no interest in unblocking him, he blanked my decline off of his talk page and emailed other administrators requesting the same thing, at one point losing his emailuser rights because he had spammed too many emails to admins there. In October 2014, he found an administrator who was willing to give him a conditional second chance if he was willing to abide by some restrictions. He agreed to the conditions (including that he not request any new user rights on enwiki for three months) and was unblocked on October 8th. At the time he promised to "slow [his] wantings to request rights across all projects".

On October 22nd, he requested the patroller right on Commons, followed rapidly by rollbacker, file mover, and autopatroller. On October 25th, he requested and was granted patroller on Simple Wikipedia. On November 5th, he successfully passed an RFA on Simple Wiktionary. In December, he requested and was given the sysop right on Testwiki. A similar smattering of other user rights requests happened across other projects, as well.

Since his return to enwiki, he has, for the most part, edited constructively. There have been some cases where his lack of familiarity with policy caused minor mishaps (misusing a speedy delete tag, reviewing a page incorrectly, etc), but he hasn't done anything notably awful. However, almost exactly upon the expiration date of his rights-request ban on enwiki, on January 10th, he requested and was granted rollback and filemover rights. The next week he requested and was granted pending changes reviewer right. He disclosed his history of deceptive rights-gathering in only one of the three requests. This week, he appears to have decided to take on Wikiquote.

My personal feeling - and of course, I encourage you to take this with a large grain of salt, since I don't participate on Wikiquote and really only know Eurodyne in my administrative capacity on enwiki - is that Eurodyne is more interested in amassing as many user rights as possible in as many places as possible than he is in actually performing service for the projects; however, once given the rights, I do believe he does his best to use them correctly when he uses them. Fluffernutter (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Fluffernutter, that is most informative, and disturbing. -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing now to stay out of drama. Eurodyne (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: Successful application.

The application having received the unanimous support of the community; Illegitimate Barrister is now an administrator. BD2412 T 00:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Illegitimate Barrister (talk · contributions)[edit]

In light of recent events, I'd like to request adminship to deal with the increasing number of vandals lately (specifically Alabaster and his numerous sockpuppet accounts). As a regular user I can only revert, which does not help much as vandals can still run amok. It is extremely frustrating to see a vandal running loose and not being able to do a single damned thing about it, please excuse my French. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 04:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Self nomination

Vote ends: 30 January 2015

*Oppose too new of an account. Alabaster (talk) Striking 'oppose' by blocked editor. Pmlineditor (t · c · l)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: Successful application.

The application having received broad support in the community; Kalki is now an administrator. BD2412 T 00:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki (talk · contributions) (4th request)[edit]

This might seem simply an absurd absurdist joke to some, on my part, but well aware of many ironies, to remind some of some purported facts, and some of the most prominent ideas and ideals with which this wiki began, before there was much decline in many ways, I, who was once a highly respected admin here (from 29 January 2004 to 1 December 2009), and also a bureaucrat for most of those years, and who declined several requests to take on other more powerful roles and responsibilities, which I neither desired, nor believed it necessary for me to attain, to best serve others, will quote the lead instructions of the nomination page:

"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."

I, who I believe that most who remember the pertinent facts of matters would admit was the most vigorous and reliable vandal fighter here, when I was an admin, and who assert that I have NEVER deliberately misused the admin tools or status at all, nor betrayed or ignored the founding PRINCIPLES of the wiki projects, and of vitally NECESSARY respect for the ideals of Justice, Unity, Liberty and GOOD FAITH towards ALL, at all, in the light of current situations, and future likelihoods, am again nominating myself for admin.

Though others are also certainly much afflicted by the recent twerp-troll-vandal, as someone without admin status, who once did have it, and who he seems thus somewhat obsessed with, and someone he particularly likes to target and attempt to torment and insult in his attacks — believe that I could thus probably most ably absorb and reduce the severity of any future efforts on his part.

Though I remain the MOST active contributor, overall, to this wiki, and have long been so, it is over a year, since my last ill-fated attempt at regaining admin status here, on 17 January 2014. I am not going to pretend to be "perfect" in the esteem of many, nor of myself, nor inclined to be extremely modest in what assessments I could make of my qualifications, nor inclined to be extremely kind in the assessments I would make of a few others, for various reasons, but after long years of often intense frustrations, and enduring contentions against various forms of mendacity, hypocrisy, errors, and extreme rational and ethical incompetence, anyone who thinks I am not more worthy and more trustworthy of being an admin here than at least a few who currently are entrusted with such status, I sincerely believe, simply has their head or mind stuck somewhere the sun and many forms of sincere good will definitely is not shining. THAT is about all I will say for now. Let us BE AWARE of ALL we can BE, and now see what will now be. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 14:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nominated, in what I hope and believe will be the LAST time, whatever comes. It has been over a year since my last attempt at regaining admin status, and if many significant things have not become far more clear to others in that time, about my worthiness for the role, and the NEED of someone with my experience and vigor in the role, MUCH of my patience in abiding their forms of contemptible conceits in relative silence is coming to an end.

Vote ends: 2015·01·30 (30th January 2015)

Support[edit]

  • Support. As I have stated in the past (and I stand by my earlier statements as well), it is my opinion that despite what many feel are appearances to the contrary, Kalki is someone who has always acted with the health of this project as the goal. Although I do not always agree with all of the presented arguments (and have commented in the past regarding their length), I do feel that Kalki is not only a strong advocate for this project but one who is constantly striving to improve it and correct issues where they occur. Since I began here (which is nearly ten years now), I have always found Kalki to be a source of information and one who is willing to discuss issues. And there are other users that are already admins whom I have seen perform acts with which I disagree - but the value of their contributions have always outweighed the negatives. I believe this to be the case with Kalki as well - the overwhelmingly majority of actions performed by Kalki have been positive and I expect that to continue should this discussion result in restoration of admin status, as I believe it should. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I strongly support Kalki as I have in his last Request for adminship. There also needs to also be more admins to stop the increasing number of vandals/trolls from disrupting and wasting other people's time. ~ Miszatomic (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Kalki has been contributing to Wikiquote for over 11 years, and has 100,000+ edits here. I can't think of anyone more deserving of adminship than him. And it's not just about fighting vandalism (though granting him ability to stop vandals would be invaluable for WQ): I also don't think Kalki should have to ask other admins for help just to update the Quote of the Day. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I reviewed the oppose comments, and none of them raised issues worth holding back over. Ancient history is not a stop. I do have a suggestion for Kalki, though. Stop responding to oppose comments, unless briefly to supply requested information. --Abd (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.  All reasons stated above.  ~ allixpeeke (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Support this, as Kalki has never been anything but a help to me here. DeistCosmos (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All reasons stated above. WikiLubber (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although Kalki has had a tough past, I strongly believe that he will not abuse the tools. Eurodyne (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Changing my stance to weak support, as much as i hate admins who are intimidating or taunting, I think Kalki (after the CU check) has proven he can be trusted with the tools, as long as he promises to not offend or attack them...--Stemoc (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm sorry that this RFA has been disrupted by socking both in the Support and Oppose sections, and especially by w:User:Dragonron. If Kalki becomes an administrator again, I look forward to working with him to build a collaborative atmosphere on this site. -- Cirt (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  • Strong oppose I rarely venture into Wikiquote, but when someone is idiotic enough to call me a "troll-vandal" with no justification whatsoever, that person is certainly not fit to be an admin. For the record, and if you had bothered checking my global account, you would have seen the 14 FAs, 26 FLs and a stack of GAs at .en Wiki. If you cannot even take a simple step before accusing someone of something, you do not deserve to be an admin. I suspect that if you hadthe power you would probably have taken admin action against me for my good faith action. - SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize everyone's right to express their honest opinions, but for someone whose VERY FEW edits here, thus far have usually included some form of insult of other's efforts, I believe your remarks are somewhat hypocritical in regard to social "niceties". And for the record, I did not actual "call you a troll-vandal" — I merely expressed my strong suspicions that you might be, based upon the rarity of your edits and the suddenness of your response to my restoration of an image you had insults for, and this coming in the current spate of vandal attacks. I did realize almost immediately after my statement that you might have had an email notice to notify you, but as I have not been an admin in a while my familiarity with the current tools available is admittedly a bit rusty, and I had begun to seek some out, when I noticed your comments here. I certainly will concede it would have been more tactful if I had restrained my suspicions a bit, and further explored things, but you don’t strike me as a master of tact in your brief ventures here either. As I stated: "if I am mistaken in my suspicions, you are welcome to edit here as you wish" and went on to declare our clear disagreement on the matters. That welcome remains, though somewhat muted, and I hope that better understandings of both of our perspectives on things can be attained to the benefit of us both. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to laugh, because in the brief time it took me to type the above statements, you have gotten into an edit war with what might be the troll currently afflicting the site, and in one of your summaries declare, quite confident of your own similar assessments of things, because of this person's activities: "I can't believe you are so lame that you signed out to edit war as an IP - and you think you're admin material???" I think that somewhat nullifies your questioning of my suspicions, when you are so eager to make bold assertions with far LESS frustration than many of US have been experiencing in recent days and weeks. Again you are welcome to edit here, as it appears I was honestly mistaken, but I do believe the page is better with the image, as crude as it is. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not the IP, which seems to be the case, then I withdraw my comment and apologise for them. I note that despite your uncivil accusation that I am a "troll vandal", you have not withdrawn the comment, or apologised for it, but gone on the attack to call me a hypocrite. You are some way short of admin matrial, I feel. - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I believe that a reading of my initial statement will affirm that I did NOT actually call you a "troll vandal", but did indicate my strong suspicions that you might be, and indeed that I suspected you "probably" were, based upon my assessments of your edits and insulting edit summaries. I actually have been apologizing for my somewhat hasty expressions of suspicions, and I believe you have begun to realize the circumstances in which they arose, and can perhaps appreciate some of the associated statements I have made. May you have a MUCH better day, henceforth, and I hope you do reconsider things a bit. In any event, I wish you well. Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat objects to the adminship of Kalki on the grounds that SchroCat suspects that "if [Kalki] had [had] the power, [Kalki] would probably have taken admin action against [SchroCat] for [SchroCat's] good faith action."  In other words, SchroCat suspects Kalki would have inappropriately taken hasty.  SchroCat's objection may have held some sway with me had it not been for the fact that Kalki had written this on SchroCat's talk page after suggesting the possibility that SchroCat was an incarnation of the recent troll-vandal: "I of course do not have proof of that, and if I am mistaken in my suspicions, you are welcome to edit here as you wish".  (One can see here that SchroCat erased this text.)  I infer from Kalki's comment that she/he would not have, had she been an admin, taken action without further investigation.  Thus, this episode does not sway me from supporting Kalki's request for adminship.  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Allixpeeke, you have utterly misrepresented what I have said; do not ever do so again and strike out the misrepresentation above immeditately please. I opposed on the fact that without a shred of anything except this user's bad faith, I was accused of being a troll-vandal. An admin needs to avoid such knee-jerk pronouncements and it is my belief that this user is not suitable for the additional powers. - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat, my apologies.  You are correct that, although you did say that you "suspect that if [Kalki] had [had] the power, [Kalki] would probably have taken admin action against [SchroCat] for [SchroCat's] good faith action", you did not technically state that that was your reason for opposing Kalki's nomination.  I inferred that your suspicion was a reason, and for that I apologise.  You are correct that you are actually opposing Kalki's nomination on faultier grounds than I had initially inferred, viz., that Kalki allegedly called you "a 'troll-vandal'".  In reality, what Kalki wrote to you was, "I have strong reason to believe you are more likely than not an incarnation of the current troll-vandal that has been afflicting this site. I of course do not have proof of that, and if I am mistaken in my suspicions, you are welcome to edit here as you wish" (emphases added).  In short, you oppose her on the grounds that she called you something she did not actually call you, not on the grounds that you fear she will abuse her power.  My sincere apology for utterly misrepresenting what you had said.  As requested, I have struck out the misrepresentation above.  Respectfully yours, allixpeeke (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Allixpeeke, thank you very much. - SchroCat (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would just point out that the IP in question is of the actual "troll-vandal"—having just now edited the talk page of one of his previous vandal- (and now blocked) accounts. This troll was obviously editing in such a way as to deliberately cause confusion—unfortunately, he succeeded. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 7 day period of necessary polling having already been passed, technically the results of this vote should very soon be closed in favor of my regaining the admin tools which I believe most people would assert I had used very honorably for many years. Even one of the strongest and most vigorous opponents of my presence here for many years has decided to alter his vote and vote for me. Out of genuine concern for any of the valid and honorable opinions of others, and some of their stated reasons for them, I am now making one last appeal to the two remaining people who have only recently been involved here, and are thus least familiar with many of the circumstances of what has occurred here over many years, to provide them a chance to reconsider their stated opposition. You are one of those two, and whether my appeal alters your inclinations now or not, I hope that your opinions of my efforts will alter as time goes by.
As you were offended, in ways I can understand, by my suspicions, which I certainly can agree I it was detrimental for me to have declared in such a manner as I did, I have attempted to apologize for my admittedly hasty declaration of them on a day on which I was very weary, and I am sorrowed that there was such contention which need not have occurred, had I not declared them. I believe it is very important for people to come to understandings through honest dialogue, and I truly do not seek to cut off anyone needlessly from dialogue. I can certainly understand there are many diverse reasons people behave as they do, and declare what they do. I hope to make that and many other things clearer here and elsewhere, in the months ahead, with testimonies of my many encounters with people, here and elsewhere on the internet, and face to face, and I hope you can be appreciative of some of my observations, in coming months and years. Whether you have the time to make response to this before it closes or not, I offer you sincere wishes for increased happiness, and end this note with Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC) +tweaks[reply]
In my rebuttal to VERY similar assertions OVER a year ago, I posted these statements and these links, and others, to FAR more extensive presentations of relevant facts than found at Cirt's links:
I have attempted to provide all I could of the assessments of others, as well as my own, so that I could provide some responses to Cirts quite REGULAR inclination to link to pages which present ONLY his views or the views of those who are largely in agreement with his. … 
I have attempted to make a far more THOROUGH record of the actual events involved around the links you provide on my own user pages: User:Kalki/Outrages of October - November 2010, User:Kalki/2011 Contentions, and User:Kalki/FloNight Assessments & Responses‎‎…
After habitually refusing to voluntarily restrict himself to human decency and fairness, I truly hope Cirt shall have further restrictions imposed on his ability to get away with malicious and deceitful distortions, by the community of those who actually do more incline towards the fundamental virtues of Humanity than he. My disagreements and contempt for Cirt's actions, attitudes, practices and what I genuinely believe to be his contempt and disregard for general fairness, honesty and human decency are very familiar to many people, so his opposition to my nomination should not come as too much of a surprise to some people here, any more than it does to me. He once again harps on issues that are rather moot, as I long ago DID agree to to abide with what I still to believe to be the UNJUST coercive impositions of people uncomfortable with permitting others MORE freedoms than they are inclined to seek for themselves. He states (as he rather monotonously has for years, on many occasions, as it is easily an effective ruse, on many ignorant of many of the facts of the matters): "After refusing to voluntarily restrict himself to one account, Kalki had restrictions imposed upon him by the community". YES, that is true, and I do not deny the fact that though I actually DO abide by these restrictions I consider them UNJUST. I have NEVER denied that I had MORE accounts than MOST people could, as yet, easily perceive any clear or moral reasons to have, and that I still have many — and I do NOT actually use them, as I agreed NOT to some YEARS ago. What Cirt is actually doing is very deceitfully HARPING on this fact I have never denied, and ignoring the FACT that this practice was NOT actually against Wikimedia policies, and I believe still is not. Though I must concede that the relative PRUDENCE of having many accounts, is clearly questionable, it was emphasized at the start of Wikipedia's development that people SHOULD have that right — and that is a FACT which many people find "inconvenient" to THEIR will and AIMS to control and intimidate ANYONE and everyone whom they can with various constraints, to such as they can easily control. I have always tended to rebel against such impulses, since my own physical infancy, and assert EVERY human being's INNATE right to do so.
I believe more of the profound differences in many inclinations and attitudes, between Cirt and myself, and such people as might actually admire his forms of callous deceitfulness and guile, and many of the reasons why I believe these are extensively worthy of note, will probably become more apparent in coming months. It is also no secret that I consider him one of the obviously least worthy people to hold admin positions that I have ever, as yet, encountered on the Wikimedia projects, and that includes some who I believe were very properly stripped of such status for their truly ethically improper activities. I do intend to here and elsewhere vigorously and extensively expose and critique many forms of hypocrisy and malice, and ALSO to encourage those of genuine good will to their fellow human beings to FORGIVE those who most easily fall into them — but NOT to expect those most habituated in them to easily or swiftly rise out of them, or be reliably persuaded out of them by either reason or love, which I believe very poorly developed and severely corrupted in such people. There is always more to say, about many things, but I know there are limits to what can be said at any one time, so I will be closing now. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 10:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
As I see it, there is but one reason to object to the promulgation of sock accounts, and that is insofar as said sock accounts are used to bolster the number of votes for some cause.  Although I've been active on Wikipedia for years, I have only been active on Wikiquote for a little over a year, and thus I lack knowledge of exactly how Kalki used her/his sock accounts.  In any event, I tend strongly to believe that once a person has served her or his time, all rights ought to be restored (including gun rights, including voting rights), and the former criminal ought to be treated like any other subject before the law.  Applying that political view to the current, unpolitical consideration, and recognising that Kalki has sworn not to use her or his sock accounts again, I would suggest that her/his past actions not be held against her/him at this time.  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
allixpeeke, where has Kalki "sworn not to use her or his sock accounts again"? -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Above, she/he wrote, "and I do NOT actually use them, as I agreed NOT to some YEARS ago" (emphasis in original).  Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed much of the evidence and history presented by Cirt, and I note that in prior process, there was one user who was continually on the attack against Kalki: Cirt.
Kalki has a philosophical or political position about multiple accounts, and was explicitly reluctant to promise what policy did not require (and which policy still does not require, it is only abusive socking that is contrary to policy). However, Kalki has only been actually blocked twice. Once by Cirt, with socking being a reason, on October 2010, which I note is more than four years ago, and once by BD2412, for incivility, in 2012. Because of the restriction declared at the Village Pump in November, 2010, and given that Wikiquote is blessed with Cirt, who would not allow any jaywalking to escape unnoticed, and the lack of blocks, I conclude that there is no evidence that Kalki has socked since late 2010.
Cirt requested checkuser on meta and here, and did not even request checkuser for Kalki, while beginning the request with his standard "history of socking by Kalki."[11]. On meta, he again mentioned the "200 plus sock farm," as if this were recent.[12] He brought up this adminship request on the Wikimedia Forum -- completely irrelevant there -- which could have the effect of canvassing.[13] It brought me here!
There are WMF users who read "puppetmaster" as something close to "disruptive and dangerous destroyer of wikis" and who might show up for that reason, so closers here should consider contributions to this wiki. I have low contribs, by the way, my interest is generally fair wiki process. I've interacted with Kalki in the past, and while he is idiosyncratic, he clearly has the best interests of Wikiquote at heart. --Abd (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the same reasons Cirt has provided. Sorry but I also feel that Kalki poses a danger to the wikiquote community; given his history of suspected and confirmed puppets (looking at 200-300+) it's safe to say that this is a hypocritical puppeteer of which I can practically see trouble abroad. His innapropriate name-calling of good faith users, especially respected sysops such as BD2412 right here certainly doesn't help his case. 2601:3:3A00:270:EC01:3AB7:50BA:5156 11:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Left the comment, but struck "oppose" – proxies (and IPs) may comment, but not !vote. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware that votes by anon IP addresses have little relevance in the final tallies, and accounts with relatively few edits should usually be treated with some suspicion, or even little regard, whether for or against me or any issues, but agree that the perceptions of concerns stated here do warrant some response. The notice I posted to BD2412's talk page is one I had been posting to various troll-vandal IP and user accounts, for their disruptive activities, disregardful of very proper community norms and practices, policies and procedures, and the ethical principles upon which these have been developed. I posted it to his talk page to make the point that I considered his behavior at that time, and at various times in recent years, especially in recent months to be PRECISELY that. Though I have VERY strong disagreement with BD2412 on the issue, and probably a few others, I do NOT wish BD2412 to lose his admin status, because I believe he is generally well intentioned and reasonable, and easily capable of adopting and even embracing better ethical behavior (Cirt is someone I quite honestly and openly have very different opinions about, and I do not believe that is any secret). I am well aware of much that is going on, in terms of fallacious and hypocritical stances of others, much of which I do not bother to point out at this time, and am actually genuinely inclined to promote forgiveness of these, when it is practically possible to do so, but I am honestly inclined to take many forms of it to greater task in the months ahead, in exposing many instances of it, whatever might be the outcome of this immediate attempt to regain useful tools and status which I believe I always honorably used. I do NOT pretend to know all that is going on, nor even all that is going on that might clearly matter much, in many things occurring now, as MANY of those most inclined to seek to condemn, constrain and control others improperly with often somewhat convincing but actually fallacious arguments, quite often seem to imply they do. I recognize your right to make your points, and hope that I am provided the opportunity to disprove some of the accusations and assessments you and others are inclined to make of me. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 12:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
  • Oppose it wouldn't surprise me if Kalki is the person responsible for the so-called "twerp vandal" attacks on this wiki, just so he can battle "himself" in order to regain his/her sysop position. Hmm! Often vandal-sockpuppetry occurs when one idiot decides to carry an ongoing debate with themselves by generating a multitude of accounts, engaging them enough to get em blocked, and the sockmaster plays the "hero" . 76.108.171.120 (globally blocked IP) blocked by steward as long-term abuser
As I believe most can quite easily discern, this comment is very likely made by the currently highly active troll-vandal who has been highly disruptive here for weeks, and which prompted one other person to nominate themselves for admin, as I was considering doing, and finally decided to do, once another nomination was already being considered. The points he makes here are actually as valid and as lucid as some of those my other detractors have sought to make, and ultimately just as worthy of disregard in terms of some obvious calls to a general distrust of any or all virtues, and to an embrace of many forms of extreme paranoia, condemnation, suspicion and the will to punish, constrain, control and disrupt the proper pursuits and activities of others, which can be made to SEEM "dangerous" or detrimental than they genuinely are. Such as simply stating the truth of one's opinions, as clearly as one can, rather than making up lies, or insisting that others do so in such ways as flatter many forms of treachery towards human virtues and humanity as a whole. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 12:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - Is a great editor but as i have seen many times when i come here to fix vandalism, he has a bad habit of intimidating vandals by taunting them. Admins should hold a higher standard and taunting trolls and calling them names is a very low one..--Stemoc (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's suggest to Kalki that he not do that -- whether he's done it before or not. How about it, Kalki? Gravitas? --Abd (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am accused of having a "bad habit of intimidating vandals." I can think of few criticisms that have been made of me that I can accept as more genuine and valid, even though the dubiousness of this being a bad thing might well be contested. It is made by someone with as yet few edits and has not had to deal with years of sometimes severe and extreme vandalism as many of us have. I hope that this person will reconsider, and examine some of my assertions, and continue to be interested in this worthy project.
I have regularly declared vandals and trolls pathetic in many ways, and I believe most can agree with me that they are. When I had admin tools I believe I was far less prone to do this, as I could simply and swiftly deal with the problems directly, and had far less inclination to be "intimidating" to people, even those plainly and blatantly doing improper and malicious things.
When I was an admin I was VERY vigilant in protecting this site against vandals, and monitored it as regularly as I could, whenever I was online. I believe I was also more prone to be tolerant and less intensely angry at what I still take to be their acts of extreme ignorance and confusion. That clearly changed when suspicions and what I considered rather improper and spiteful actions and a foolish betrayal of many levels of good will and trust, based upon some ignorance and confusions on the part of a few others, became a basis of confusion for MANY others, in ways I deemed needless, dangerous and detrimental to MUCH that was good about this wiki and most wiki projects. I recognized immediately that immense DAMAGE had been done to my potentials to operate OBSCURELY in my efforts to sincerely HELP others and NOT hinder them in exploring the options available here, but despite much sorrow and some anger, I immediately forgave those I believed had erred, but had no doubt the consequences would be immense, and frustrating, and would take some time to remedy, to the extent they could be remedied at all.
Once again being an admin I would be MUCH more willing and inclined to once again monitor this site regularly, usually several times an hour, while I am online, even if I am primarily engaged in other things, and as I believe I usually was with most vandals and trolls when I could swiftly put an end to their damages, less inclined to get angry at such extensive RAVAGING of the wiki as have occurred since I have not been an admin, and able to swiftly stop these, as I once regularly did.
As one particular person, at MANY places on this page, has diligently sought to dredge up as much innuendo as possible against me, In further defense of myself, I believe it is appropriate to review some things about my history here.
Even when I was an admin I made VERY clear that there was too much VANITY associated with official positions and not enough genuine service on the part of MANY, and in the very first notice of my adminship status I gave on my user page, I stated, on 3 February 2004:
I have recently been made one of the administrators here, which doesn't give me any special authority… only a bit more ability to keep others from misusing the privileges provided.
I became a bureaucrat 31 March 2005 and was long the ONLY one here, and thus promoted many others to admin status, and actively requested that others accept the role, recognizing the need for more. Eight admins were created in my first year as bureaucrat. There followed MANY more I made admins and bureaucrats, in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.
Though I actually had perceived some things which gave me some misgivings at the start of his activities here, I even made Cirt (talk · contributions) an admin, and had even voted for him in February of 2009, with the curtly tenuous but sincere "Support : Cirt seems to be a fine candidate to have use of the administrator tools." I will confess my error in giving even that amount of approval, in honestly stating he seemed so, and now must finely and sincerely assert I long ago clearly realized he seems the LEAST deserving of having these of any person I have yet had extensively encountered on the wikis, including some who were properly desysopped years ago, for he has severely misused them, and from what I have observed, regularly "throws his weight around" and uses his status on wikis where he has not yet been desysopped, to dupe or intimidate others improperly, especially new editors with few edits, and little prestige, power or familiarity with the wikis. To those who do have such he is very often apparently scrupulously polite in his manner, in what I sincerely believe to be deceitful ways. I believe it will come as a surprise to few that I believe him far worse in character than even the largely pathetic and incredible wretch he has regularly tried to make me appear.
By 2009 I had made several others bureaucrats, who could replace me in that necessary role, and my dissatisfaction with the growth of what I perceived to be cliques of prestige-and-power-hungry people who regularly abused their status and privileges on the wikis had impelled me to consider resigning it, in protest. I never considered resigning my adminship, because as the tools for fighting vandals were far too valuable, and up to that time I had clearly been the MOST active and reliable vandal fighter on the wiki.
Then, unfortunately came the disputes about what I believe has always been severe misunderstandings of my various usernames, and why I have had so many, and still do, elsewhere. There are other sites I am active at, including wikis — but to a great extent I have been loathe to reveal these, one reason being that I recognize some of the vilest sorts of trolls, vandals, slanderers and generally ignorant and spiteful people who have targeted me here might be prone to do so elsewhere as well, and do not desire the increased workloads in contesting with their malicious wills.
I believe that treatment which many of those who seek to edit here, and at Wikipedia is part of what has led to massive decline in editors, and those interested in being involved productively rather than destructively on many of the Wikimedia projects. Gamaliel (talk · contributions) who has been an Wikipedia admin for over 10 years helped notify many to this, in the article Wikipedia is "a rancorous, sexist, elitist, stupidly bureaucratic mess", in the Signpost (10 December 2014), about the article "Encyclopedia Frown" in Slate (11 December 2014) by David Auerbach.
When people go around throwing their weight around tyrannically and destructively, in some ways far more despicably than vandals, expecting to be OBEYED without question or dispute, obsessively exaggerating any slight to them, in their apparent belief others should simply OBEY them, and habitually belittling the contributions of others, as some admins and users on our wikis DO, it IS intimidating to many, and horribly frightening to some and should NOT be condoned, and there are some people so habituated to such practices that they do not even perceive their own regular use of such methods as in any way hypocritical, and prone to punish as severely as they can anyone who dares to point it out.
I know many of the limits on many roles that people can play and I certainly do not believe my adminship can prevent many of these abuses, but I sincerely believe it generally would be beneficial and help to begin to diminish the numbers and impact of many of them. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 13:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
Note: These huge replies with walls-of-text by Kalki make it extremely difficult for the community, and fellow admins, to communicate with him. -- Cirt (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your apparent need to make denigrations of other's efforts at honesty, candor and explication, and to make absolutist determinations of to what extent others can do it, do not exhibit much genuine respect for either honesty, candor or human liberty. I hope that is a brief enough reply for you to be able to mentally digest. I sincerely do wish to communicate with those capable of being communicated with. Blessings ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite new here so I don't quite expect my vote to count for much. However, from what I've seen of Kalki's attitude/opinion/respect for other editors, I must weakly oppose. --L235 (talk) enwiki 02:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I suppose I'm not familiar enough with Wikiquote as a project and individual editors here to be competent to make an informed vote. --L235 (talk) enwiki 05:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Having reviewed more of Kalki's contribution history, especially interactions with other editors, I regret to reinstate my oppose vote, for what my extremely small contrib history here is worth. Specifically, feeling entitled to use walls of text and bolding almost everything to be highly infuriating, as well as personal attacks even towards respected sysops and long-term constructive contributors. This will hopefully be my last edit to this page. --L235 (talk) enwiki 00:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone's opinion and vote does count to some degree, and I recognize your right to yours, but I believe I am quite respectful of MOST editors, even those I disagree with, and their right to disagree. Cirt is one person who I believe most people can recognize has harassed me for years, and much of the commentary on this page has in some ways actually been driven by his accusations or demands, and I know I am not inclined to be gentle towards him, nor he towards me. I am not usually inclined to be comfortable in accepting what I believe to be various forms of injustice, and I have actively fought against that rather vigorously at times. I hope you will consider some of my perspectives, and that you come to find this an interesting and worthy project. ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
@L235, I feel Kalki's attitude towards you, as a new user here, at your talk page and VP, was very positive, and respectful. So your comment perplexes me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalki: I do sincerely appreciate your helping me get started with this project. I suppose I simply can't support when I see you being quite disrespectful to another editor- you should probably seek an IBAN. @DanielTom: Yes, Kalki has been very helpful to me. I suppose I'll strike out my vote, reconsidering. Cheers. --L235 (talk) enwiki 05:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you much for your reconsideration. I hope you find this place much more welcoming place in the future, much as I believe it generally was prior to events in 2009. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 10:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It did not go noticed by others that you had again altered your vote, back to opposition, which is your right, but I do hope you might have a chance to alter it once again, but whether you have time to do so before the vote closes, I wish you well, and invite your further scrutiny of matters. Part of what follows is what I have posted to another user also:
The 7 day period of necessary polling having already been passed, technically the results of this vote should very soon be closed in favor of my regaining the admin tools which I believe most people would assert I had used very honorably for many years. Even one of the strongest and most vigorous opponents of my presence here for many years has decided to alter his vote and vote for me. Out of genuine concern for any of the valid and honorable opinions of others, and some of their stated reasons for them, I am now making one last appeal to the two remaining people who have only recently been involved here, and are thus least familiar with many of the circumstances of what has occurred here over many years, to provide them a chance to reconsider their stated opposition. You are one of those two, and whether my appeal alters your inclinations now or not, I hope that your opinions of my efforts will alter as time goes by.
You use the term "walls of text" which is a term someone else used to be derisive of my sincere attempts to be honest and revelatory of truth, in sometimes meticulous ways, sometimes against the assertions of those who also use an abundance of words, but in a more extensive diffuse fashion, in many diverse locations, which is not always immediately apparent. There are few other ways available to honorably counter assertions which one perceives to be erroneous in some manner, than to use words honestly to counter them. Sometimes this can indeed be tedious to sort through, but though silence in regard to many things is often significant, it is not often very persuasive. You also assert that my bolding of words for emphasis as something objectionable — I must assert that criticism of that long-term habit of mine is not likely to be persuasive, as I believe it genuinely helpful to many people to so emphasize important points in assertions. There are many ways which people fail to communicate and fail to appreciate the MANY diverse ways people can and do try to communicate with others, and I believe that the use of bold text on computer screens can often be an effective tool that should not be scorned or belittled. Whatever you might decide on this particular matter, or whether you check in in time to alter your decision, or make reply, I hope you can find this a generally welcoming place to explore the wit and wisdom of Humanity. Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]

Comments[edit]

Note: due to some disruptive fly-by edits, I have semi-protected this discussion for seven days. Ideally, the matter will be concluded by then. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could use some basic standards as to who is allowed to !vote. Something like having at least 500 edits on Wikiquote (minimum) for the person's vote to be valid. Obviously, IPs' (and especially proxies') !votes should not count at all. Ideally, only established users should get to decide who should be an admin. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that there should be standards, but disagree that new standards should be thought up, during an ongoing Adminship Request. -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that although I have racked up almost a thousand edits on Wikiquote, I would not be surprised if half of them are edits to my user page; thus, I do not know whether or not I technically have five-hundred non-userpage edits.  That said, I plan to continue editing for years to come, and I would not be giving Kalki my support if I anticipated it having a negative repercussion on my capacity to edit in the future.  Further, although I have only been an editor of Wikiquote for a little over a year, I have been an editor of Wikipedia for many years, and I would regard myself as an established user of both Wikipedia and Wikiquote.  Feel free to take any of this into consideration when deciding whether or not to tally my vote amongst the others.  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt did not state when that comment was made. It was 23 April 2011. In that RfA, most were opposed, it was still fresh, the issues of 2010. Is it acceptable to dredge up comments from old RfAs? Perhaps we can just list them:
FloNight is active and free to comment here, and may well do so. The mention above will, of course, ping the user. Let's hope that Kalki has learned something. That 3rd request was close, but ... Gravitas! --Abd (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, imitating Bad Behavior is a Bad Idea, don't. BD2412 did support Kalki in April 2011 as quoted, but was opposed in 2012. In January, 2014, BD2412 did not !vote, but closed it as unsuccessful, noting the unnecessarily negative tone. The user may express a new opinion here, I would not venture to predict it. --Abd (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above from Thatcher is from 17 November 2009, more than five years ago. This is the most outrageous behavior I have ever seen in an RfA. Cirt is still an admin here? He lost it on enwiki for tendentious behavior. --Abd (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, most certainly not "outrageous" to quote someone's extremely relevant comments. Abd is indef blocked on en.wikipedia for "community banned". -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what a relief that was. If anyone wants the story, ask me, but here is not the place, and such an ad hominem is, I'm coming to think, typical for Cirt. Given that Cirt has been almost a one-man anti-Kalki band, given that his opposition is the major opposition here, and his given his heavy hand in the past issues over Kalki, I will cite his desysopping case and note that I've seen signs of the same bias, here on Wikiquote. That's for another day. I'll repeat, Cirt has been vehemently against Kalki, has repeated the same claims over and over, ad nauseum, for over four years. It's time to give it a rest.
Cirt is a highly experienced and sophisticated user. He knows that placing a link to Flonight in his text here would ping Flonight. There was no need for that to make the quote, even if such a four-year old opinion were relevant. --Abd (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What hypocrisy about ad hominem from Abd who then cites about a case from a different wiki, himself. I was simply responding to his actions doing so. And then he does it again. Unbelievable. I will note that both FloNight DIFF and Thatcher DIFF voiced serious concerns about Kalki being an admin, so this is not simply views held by myself, but also by FloNight and Thatcher, among others. -- Cirt (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently typical Cirt. Is it appropriate to bring comments from old (2011, the first, 2009, the second) to this RfA? I linked all the RFAs so anyone can read all the comments, supportive and in opposition (that should be routine, by the way). That's not enough for Cirt. Almost all of it is a variation of the "200 sockfarm" claim. I've started looking into that. Can of worms. Normally, we do not revisit ancient history, it's considered disruptive. Is it disruptive on Wikiquote? Since that is being brought up, maybe the community should actually have a look. But not here. Kalki has not socked here for well over four years. It's unclear that the socking was ever disruptive, but he agreed to stop. Done. --Abd (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, it most certainly was disruptive, per FloNight, "The use of this many accounts was disruptive and had to be evaluated by checkusers and other people experienced with evaluation socking. And I stand by my assertion that the accounts were used in a deceptive manner.". -- Cirt (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "unclear." That is not "wrong." "Unclear" is an "occurring." So far, for me, it's unclear. There may have been disruption. Cirt has cited Kalki as admitting it, but what was cited was also unclear. What Cirt has done is to assert an opinion from FloNight from over four years ago. I've seen such opinions that were in error, even from highly reputable checkusers. Normally, we do not go back to old stuff and try to clear it up. It's looking like an investigation may be needed, if Cirt is not willing to drop this. What I've seen so far is Cirt's hands all over the case. I'd rather drop it, it's work to investigate these things. --Abd (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The investigation was led by FloNight, assisted by Thatcher, and helped by Aphaia. FloNight compiled her results of her investigation at User:FloNight/Kalki. -- Cirt (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, Kalki's past accounts have contributed greatly to Wikiquote, far more than many users I could name. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are clear differences of opinions of many people on many things, some are presented honestly and fairly, and some very deceptively, in many ways. I hope that FloNight has had reasons to moderate her opinions of me since these comments of April 2011, but whatever the case, in regard to that, there are extreme differences in incidental and unintended disruption and deliberate disruption — such as you have engaged in MANY times towards me, including the massive cross-wiki slander campaigns you have avidly made, resulting in some cases of blocks by those unfamiliar with MANY facts of matters (the MOST significant of which was eventually overturned, thanks to the efforts of BD2412, and to his efforts at that I remain grateful). I consider that disruptive in an extremely malicious way, and hope that you learn to moderate your impulses to denigrate others so much as you often do. I believe that we all have much we can honestly criticize about MANY others, but most of us actually do temper our impulses to derision when we perceive we are dealing with people inclined to reason and fairness. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC) + tweak[reply]
Kalki, you've used the word "slander" three (3) times on this Request for Admin page. Please, I ask you to either cite specific quotes and DIFF links, to back up your accusations, or apologize and stop it. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be insisting on me identifying some obvious slander on THIS page to justify my use of the term slander to many of your general actions at this wiki and elsewhere, over many years. On this page you are for the most part merely using the far more crafty method of deceitful innuendo, which is harder to clearly specify as such, as it involves much more than can be pointed to easily. I will point to the FACT that such terms as "cross-wiki harassment" and massive "cross-wiki slander campaigns" is how I have in the past quite overtly referred to your campaigns of denigrating me and implying or claiming I very deliberately and maliciously misused my accounts on this and various other wikis in ways that I clearly did NOT. I have repeatedly asserted that though assessments made by others might indicate they believe otherwise, I asserted vigorously that I believe there is VERY LITTLE is even genuinely credible evidence of that, and certainly NOT any "proof", because I know what my general intentions and aims have been and what they have NEVER been — and I accept that the final assessments for each and all probably must rest upon MUCH that is opinion and NOT clear fact. I have not cowered away from asserting this, where others might cautiously counsel a more timidly deferential stance, but boldly asserted it.
Just for starts your CURRENT efforts at Meta to make my past use of alternate accounts YEARS AGO seem something I CURRENTLY use, when I believe all genuinely responsible and honest people will acknowledge I foreswore use of these and there has been NO credible indications of me having broken that agreement, and I personally KNOW I have not.
I know my own memory of many of the events of many years ago needs refreshing, so I am attempting to do some of the tedious work of verifying much that I can recall, and some of which I had forgotten, and actually rarely had thought upon of your pass cross-wiki harassments. I concede I might get some of the timing of some things wrong, at least at first, but will try to correct any errors that become clear to me.
There is QUITE a bit more I had typed, and more I was going to quote from past discussions, but I am now aware of your further efforts to have me BLOCKED on the admins noticeboard for NOT IMMEDIATELY responding to your highly PRESUMPTIVE DEMANDS here, and will carry on further assertions there, before I have to attend to a few other things elsewhere. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I had intended to stay out of this entirely, since my role as a 'crat puts me in the position of potentially closing the discussion. However, since my name has been brought up multiple times in the conversation above, it would now seem more prudent for me to avoid executing that role in this case. As for the specific issues being raised, I agree with the critique that Kalki tends to direct excessively negative comments towards vandals, but I believe that he will moderate that tendency if he is made an admin. I would hope that he would be the bigger person and bury the hatchet in various other disputes in which he has been involved. It really doesn't bother me that Kalki gets upset over my punctuation drives and vents his frustrations accordingly. It is, as he said, a difference of opinion, and I think our contrasting opinions are equally strong. I am absolutely certain, however, that he will continue to be a vigilant defender of this project, and will address our current wave of vandalism to the best of his abilities. I will not vote in this discussion, but I have no opposition to Kalki getting the mop again. BD2412 T 05:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, what do you think of this from Kalki's nomination statement in this discussion: "I sincerely believe, simply has their head or mind stuck somewhere the sun and many forms of sincere good will definitely is not shining." ??? -- Cirt (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find that hilarious. I really hadn't noticed it. My full response archived to history.
I'm concerned myself about Kalki, and might revise my vote. However, he's one of the founders of Wikiquote, and I'm inclined to cut him a lot of slack. Other admins can restrain him, if needed. --Abd (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's Kalki being Kalki, throwing in his usual long-winded rhetorical flourishes. There is no requirement that admins get along with all other admins. I certainly hope that Kalki will work towards avoiding those kinds of comments in the future, but the bottom line for me is that as an admin he would block vandals, delete rubbish, and partake in the other janitorial tasks that this project constantly requires. BD2412 T 16:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, BD2412, and what about "enduring contentions against various forms of mendacity, hypocrisy, errors, and extreme rational and ethical incompetence"? -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That, dear Cirt, was me being forthright with my inclination to speak with candor about many things, to the extent it is not censored or prevented by those inclined to be deceitfully cowardly and villainous. To paraphrase BD2412's reply a bit, I can accept that your reluctance to let go of making any harsh statements I might be inclined to make against various forms of injustices seem an unjust insult is simply you being you. A fuller quote of the statement you link to, which after all, like others you have, is still at the top of THIS page, has more context that is appropriate:
I am not going to pretend to be "perfect" in the esteem of many, nor of myself, nor inclined to be extremely modest in what assessments I could make of my qualifications, nor inclined to be extremely kind in the assessments I would make of a few others, for various reasons, but after long years of often intense frustrations, and enduring contentions against various forms of mendacity, hypocrisy, errors, and extreme rational and ethical incompetence…
I am just presently back from a brief excursion, and despite the obvious hostility that has existed between us, truly hope you can learn much in coming months, that will prevent you from what I sincerely perceive are many grave errors, of various kinds. I hope to work with you as an admin in the coming days and be able to spare you some consequences that many might believe you deserve, but I would be willing to pardon you from bearing, at least immediately. I wish you well, and to quote a movie I recently watched, filled with some sights and situations I am more familiar with than some might suppose: "I am offering you a chance to do the right thing. Take it." May you have a good and enlightening day. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This really is a comment, a reflection, not a vote. It seems that the social atmosphere in a wiki is a bit like the social atmosphere at a restaurant. When one regular guest of the restaurant keeps denouncing the other guests for their bad taste in food, and declaring at length that his own taste is vastly superior, then many of those other guests will quietly decide to go to some other restaurant, one where the social atmosphere is less likely to ruin their meal. Anything for a quiet life, without someone at the next table shouting insults at someone else. The restaurant owner can guess why so many tables are now empty, but the loud-voiced guest is a regular and it seems increasingly essential to keep him coming back - and maybe even offer him a special table. He really is a regular, and the restaurant could scarcely manage to stay open if he were to leave along with the people he drove away. - Macspaunday (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though we certainly disagree on a few things, and perhaps a great many things, I actually agree with this, as a very pertinent observation. But the fact is there are those who initiate insults and assaults of various kinds, in various subtle or overt ways and those who can accept them mildly, to the extent they can, and yet there are some which are so grievously misleading it is a betrayal of some of one's duty to humanity not to contend against them. Preferably in calm ways, but sometimes in passionate ways that are not always "pretty." I thank you for your observations, and hope you can appreciate mine, and I hope that we can come to better understandings of each other's perspectives in the future. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Preferably in calm ways, but sometimes in passionate ways that are not always 'pretty.'" This is the main problem with Kalki that I believe Macspaunday is referring to here. -- Cirt (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not presume to actually know all that Macspaunday might wish to refer to, as others might, but your insistence on linking to a sentence you quote that is directly ABOVE your comment, certainly is a bit of programmed emphasis and drama which seems to me an insult to most people's intelligence. Of course it might be deemed actually necessary or appropriate by you, but I don’t think that is actually the case of most people of even average intelligence. Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Assumption is incorrect. Just a habit to preserve and make it easier to find diff-links in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your rather typical absolutist certitude that I am absolutely wrong in my assertion and you are absolutely right can be amazing to some, I am sure. Declaring your linking to a diff of a sentence that is directly above your own "a habit to preserve and make it easier to find diff-links in the future" seems rather ridiculous, but I will take it as about a lucid and intelligent a comment as I can expect from you. May you learn to laugh at yourself more, as the wise ever do, and denigrate others less, and so come to greater wisdom. Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The impolite tone used by Kalki in this above reply, directly above here, shows an unfit nature to comport oneself with politeness as a potential administrator. Indeed, Kalki can't even be polite and succinct at his own RFA, itself. -- Cirt (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Insistence upon the superiority of "polite tones" more than sincerity and candor are of course what are emphasized by many fools as well as many forms of conniving and treacherous villains. I will be polite enough to assert that people should be free to express their honest opinions, against the innuendos of others, and even fools and villains and cowards should be forgiven, for their lack of moral integrity, to the extent possible. I believe your apparent willingness and ability to figuratively "smile and smile and be…" precisely what you are, will not go entirely unnoticed by anyone of any intelligence and ethical integrity. Statements of Truth are ever Blessings to the wise — may many more statements of truth eventually become blessings to you. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kalki's personal attack, right here, accusing me of being a form "of conniving and treacherous villains" is yet another example of why Kalki should not be an administrator. -- Cirt (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You of course seem to be implying that in NONE of your generous and copious comments about me, presently on this page and in your past cross-wiki slander campaigns, you have been making ANY kind of personal attack at all. O, so goes the world.… So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kalki, you are welcome to give a DIFF of a specific comment of mine that you feel was a personal attack. -- Cirt (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the invitation to imitate your modes of operation, but I will decline, because I believe the general tenor and gist of MOST of your comments are plain enough for most people to perceive their general import, and much of the attitude and aggression you often manifest. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another indication of being unfit for admin. When called on accusing someone else of making a personal attack, the admin candidate should be able to produce specific DIFFs and quotes, not vague generalities. -- Cirt (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly believe honestly specifying your quite copious activity and accusations on this page, for anyone to see, and on MANY places on many wikimedia wikis and discussion forms, recently and for years which CAN be specified to very great extent, to be resorting to merely "vague generalities" they are specific enough to be confirmed by anyone who is remotely interested, as I do not actually expect most people to be. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:

    (1) I am familiar with the fact that Wikiquote (&c.) has admins, but in reading some of the discussions, I have also come across the term bureaucrat.  I am wondering if there is a list to which I can be directed indicating all the various positions of authority that exist on Wikiquote, and an easy breakdown of the actual functions and powers of said positions.

    (2) Is there a list to which I can be directed containing the user names of all the various Wikiquote admins, bureaucrats, &c.?

    Thanks in advance, allixpeeke (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes: List of admins; List of bureaucrats. (See also Wikiquote:Administrators.) Bureaucrats now basically serve to promote other users to admins/crats. They used to be able to rename users as well, but not anymore. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asking socks to self-disclose[edit]

Discussion/request moved to Talk, this is not about the RfA itself. --Abd (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Abd, I've got no problem with my request being moved to the talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: Unsuccessful application. The applicant is encouraged to try again after a several more months, and several hundred more edits. BD2412 T 17:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contributions)[edit]

I would like to become an administrator that I may help curtail vandals.

Vote ends: July 9th, 2015

Support[edit]

Oppose[edit]

  • Oppose for now. With some 400 edits in 2½ months, IOHANNVSVERVS is off to a good start. However, I think it takes closer to 1,000 edits over a period of several months, including both editing articles and participating in community affairs, to learn the written and unwritten rules of the community and to demonstrate proficiency. I encourage IOHANNVSVERVS to keep at it, and to reapply after gaining more experience. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some hints:
    1. Please sign your posts in discussion pages (such as the nomination/application above).
    2. To figure out technical tricks like listing a discussion you can review the page history to see how "transclusion" is done.
    3. Please provide a reason in deletion request templates. (Even when it seems obvious, administrators should state a reason in the deletion log because the page itself will no longer be visible.)
    Keep on editing... ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ningauble: it's funny, I have the exact opposite concern! First of all, to answer your points—and as you no doubt know—, even very experienced admins: 1) occasionally forget to sign; 2) have had trouble setting up their own request for adminship on Wikiquote correctly (even after several tries); 3) once they become admins, have access to a list of reasons to choose from when deleting pages, which I'm sure IOHANNVSVERVS would use properly. Now, more to the point, if IOHANNVSVERVS really only has "2½ months" of experience, then (to my mind) even just using {{delete}} to tag a page for deletion is already quite a technical achievement (not to mention his first edit here). So maybe I should ask (if I may) IOHANNVSVERVS a question: do you have any previous wiki experience? ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Before IOHANNVSVERVS I had some few months of anonymous editing[23] and I've been contributing to Wiktionary since October of 2014[24].
IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: Unsuccessful application. BD2412 T 22:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contributions) (Second application)[edit]

I have requested adminship before and was declined for want of experience. I was advised to reapply in a few months and am now doing so. —This unsigned comment is by IOHANNVSVERVS (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 September 2015‎.

Vote ends: September 16, 2015

  • More experience wouldn't hurt (still occasionally forgets to sign), and I would expect to see more maintenance work (mainly vandalism reversion) from someone wanting to be admin, but the editor is intelligent, receptive and clearly well-intentioned, so I must !vote Support again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose again. I appreciate the good-faith efforts; but this contributor still has not got the hang of communicating in the manner that is expected of an administrator. E.g. one should never {{prod}} an article without giving a reason[25] or edit summary[26], and when proposing to delete the work of a regular contributor[27] one should always post a note on their talk page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

Votes of confidence[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: no consensus to remove administrative rights at this time. BD2412 T 19:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LrdChaos (talk · contributions)[edit]

  1. Starting discussion here to remove Admin flag, unfortunately, due to over three (3) years of inactivity.
  2. Zero activity on Wikiquote since 2012 [28]. Also inactive at en.wikipedia [29].
  3. Currently holds Admin flag [30].
  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)[reply]

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

Remove[edit]

Keep[edit]

Comments[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: no consensus to remove administrative rights at this time. BD2412 T 19:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iddo999 (talk · contributions)[edit]

  1. Starting discussion here to remove Admin flag, unfortunately, due to over four (4) years of inactivity.
  2. Zero activity on Wikiquote since 2010 [31]. Oddly, zero contributions, ever, to English Wikipedia.
  3. Currently holds Admin flag [32].
  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)[reply]

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

Remove[edit]

Keep[edit]

Comments[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: no consensus to remove administrative rights at this time. BD2412 T 19:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MosheZadka (talk · contributions)[edit]

  1. Starting discussion here to remove Admin flag, unfortunately, due to over four (4) years of inactivity.
  2. Zero activity on Wikiquote since 2010 [33]. Also inactive on Wikipedia since 2010 [34].
  3. Currently holds Admin flag [35].
  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)[reply]

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

Remove[edit]

Keep[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Per Ningauble, Kalki, and DanielTom. Mdd (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • Agree with Pmlineditor to support discussing on framing some sort of inactivity policy. -- Mdd (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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[reply]
            • 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)[reply]

Comments[edit]

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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: no consensus to remove administrative rights at this time. BD2412 T 19:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaxl (talk · contributions)[edit]

  1. Starting discussion here to remove Admin flag, unfortunately, due to over seven (7) years of inactivity.
  2. Zero activity on Wikiquote since 2008 [36]. Also inactive on Wikipedia since 2006 [37].
  3. Currently holds Admin flag [38].
  4. Please vote with "Remove" or "Keep".

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

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

Remove[edit]

Keep[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Comments[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship/Archives/2015&oldid=2722320"