Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Archives/2016

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The result was: Withdrawn application. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Atcovi (talk · contributions)

Hello Wikiquotians! This will actually be my 2nd request to gain sysop permissions (see 1st request here). It is now March, and I returned in February after I decided to return.

Now… I know most of you might be thinking that I’m too new here and I should wait for a couple of months. I’m already known by a few as the user back in 2014. I would edit constantly back in 2014. Towards the end, I dripped in activity, and I was inactive for the whole 2015 (made edits here to here, reverting vandalism). I returned then on February, and I have accumulated 4000 edits since my return (with no problems in my editing: see update)

Now I believe that I should not be opposed for being too “new”, because I already have my “jist” here at Wikiquote, meaning: I already know how to properly add a quote and the basics of a Wikiquote contributor, as I did contribute a lot back in 2014, and I still do today. I, as well, know the community, and haven’t forgotten about the community, and I hope that the community has not forgotten me.

I have accumulated more than 4000 edits here at WQ since my return, which explains my activity and devotion. Best works: works related to Sri Lanka (sri lankan politicians, people), cricketers, and country pages. See User:Atcovi/Contributions

I’ve also felt like I’ve taken care of concerns in my last request, which were:

• Garbled English in policy page – Only a one time incident
• Wikicoding error – I have more experience than I was a noobie on wikicoding
• Weird messages – I know better how to communicate instead of like this: (here and here)
• Creating an article without a category – I’ve added cats to all of my newly created pages.
• Edit summaries – I add edit summaries to about 95% of my edits, the ones without edit summaries is because I was in a rush or I simply forgot (I’m a human, after all), so that problem has been taken care of.

Plus, I also have a need for the rights. The same issue back in 2014 is still not solved, there are times where I’m (pretty much) the only user patrolling for vandalism and spam… and when I see vandals/spambots, it frustrates me that I can’t block those accounts, like I would do at en.wikibooks (same issue there, now with me, you don’t see so much spam/vandalism/pages awaiting deletion like before). I’ve reported a couple of Ips/Accounts at Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress, and I'd like to, instead of reporting vandals, block vandals.

[Additional info]

• Sysop experience at en.wikibooks, so I already know what/how the tools are like.
• SWMT member, showing I’m trusted and experience in what is vandalism/spam (I’m a gr, aka global rollbacker)
• nl-1, and almost da-1 – I’ve actually taken the initiative to learn other languages
• I’m always available on the IRC Channel: #wikiquote
• I have 20,000+ edits wiki-wide

What I plan to do as sysop

• Delete pages awaiting deletion (sometimes it takes 2+ days for a page to get deleted, no joke (Wq/bn/Wikiquote:Discussions - tagged for deletion for "author request" on March 25, 2016, not yet deleted and it's now March 31, 2016), and yes, it can be really tiring!)
• Block vandals (IPs and accounts)
• Close some RFD at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion. I manage the request for deletions at WB (wikibooks), so I have good judgement in what is and what is not worthy of deletion. I've also participated in some of the VFDs. I may always agree with the majority in a VFD, but it's because I actually agree with the users who are voting for deletions on some of the pages.
• Block spambots at the Spam blacklist, like I do at WB

Choice is yours. Thanks! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nomination

Vote ends: April 3, 2016.

---

• Comment: Hi, any comments on this? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Based on my limited experience with this user, I see no reasons why Atcovi would be an unfit admin. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support — I had growing intent to support this nomination, at this point, despite some previous reservations — but had wanted to keep mentions of some of my reasons for past reluctance and current acceptance to a minimum, for the sake of everyone. Your general awareness and appreciation of many aspects of general wikimedia conditions, and activities on other wikis is certainly favorable, and though each wiki has its own peculiarities and problems to give some regard, I believe you are probably sufficiently aware of that fact. I had actually typed a couple assessments over the last couple of days, favoring your bid, this time, one a bit longer, the next a bit shorter than this, but had wanted to simply examine your activities elsewhere a bit more extensively before posting any statements, and had not had the time to do so, amidst other concerns. I have now only made a few brief scans, but I find nothing that indicates any problem. We shall perhaps see how others feel on the matter, within the coming days. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Back on the site admittedly for one (1) month, and then after returning, comes here to request sysop. I re-read over the concerns raised in the prior request by user before the user was re-named, at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Goldenburg111. After reading over the comments from Ningauble and Pmlineditor -- plus adding in the act of requesting adminship after essentially one (1) month of activity -- I'm quite a bit leery here. Seems like collecting hats, to me. -- Cirt (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The thing is for me is I believe that there is a need for requesting sysopship here. Pages aren't getting deleted, vandals aren't getting blocked quicker, and there are probably spambots at the Spam Blacklist I'd be happy to clean up. In addition, it doesn't matter how long the activity, it matters if the user has the "taste" of the community, and I already know how to. I create quality pages and I know when it comes to WQ rules. It's not collecting hats if there is a reason for the request, and in my view, there is a need for the right. I don't see any problem for me to request after nearly 2 months on here, because there is a need. I wouldn't request sysopship if someone was actually deleting the pages, and blocking vandals/spambots that float around here quickly. This is just to clarify Cirt, thank you. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I share the concerns expressed above about brief, intermittent participation at Wikiquote. Additionally, I am unimpressed by the quality of this user's article contributions. From Goldenburg111's earliest contributions I did not see much appreciation of Wikiquote's purpose and mission of collecting famous or notorious quotations refined to a handful of well-chosen words to preserve a legacy of knowledge passed onward, from one generation to the next. I do not think Atcovi's sporadic participation here has yet led to a deeper understanding of Wikiquote's raison d’être.

  Looking at the three articles created just since this nomination was posted, none reflect much of an understanding of good Wikiquote content, or set the kind of example expected of an administrator. Regarding Joe Root (created 30 March), I am not sure why any of his recent remarks included here are considered quoteworthy, and they have certainly not stood the test of time by being re-quoted elsewhere long after this game-day coverage. Copying an entire profile that runs more than three times the length of the Gettysburg Address lies so far outside what is meant by a brief, pithy, memorable quote that I am at a loss to explain the concept. Similarly, Harbhajan Singh (created 29 March) and Arjun Nair (created 28 March) lack the sort of memorable statements that belong in a compendium of notable quotations. All three articles required format corrections by other contributors, but it might be better to delete them – none of this would ever appear in the pages of something like Bartlett's Familiar Quotations.

  Atcovi's contributions may mature with time, but for now I have to oppose making an intermittent contributor of poor or marginal content an administrator of Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand. There are at least one quotable quote, according to this "policy". Plus, the only "format corrections" were simply adding "about [pagename]" to the about section. There are quotable quotes in each page. I don't appreciate how there is a threat to deleting my pages, which I've worked on for at least 30 minutes, I want to work on a wiki where my pages will be appreciated. Oh well, we can say this as withdrawned... ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

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.