Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Koavf

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. BD2412 T 21:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf (talk · contributions)

I would like to nominate myself as an admin an en.wq. I think I could help here with maintenance and have ideas about how to radically improve the site. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vote ends: 2018-02-15

@UDScott: Can you please close this? Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, cheers! BD2412 T 22:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support. Justin has been around this site for many years and has always fought against vandalism and other issues. I view him as a conscientious and dedicated member of our community and I believe we could benefit from having him as another admin (and we definitely need more admins as there are so few that remain active these days). ~ UDScott (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Justin is certainly a trusted user, though I have concerns about the sporadic activity. Noting the lack of active admins, this is a definite issue, unless his activity picks up after being granted adminship. hiàn 04:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Inquiry: I was at the start somewhat inclined to support this self-nomination, despite relatively sparse or sporadic activity in the past, as you seem generally inclined to be helpful. After reviewing some edits I was reminded of a few relatively minor reasons to refrain from doing so, which I yet remained inclined to overlook and let pass, because whatever strong disagreements I might have had with a few of your past assessments and assertions, I don’t currently consider them extreme enough to make any active objections, and remain slightly inclined to support the nomination. I yet believe some explication of your "ideas about how to radically improve the site" would probably be appropriate before the making any final decision upon the matter. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 07:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kalki: Fair. In short, I think the the first immediate change I would like to see is a shift toward a Structured Wikiquote. This will make it dramatically easier to share quotations between language projects, store durable citations, and give context to quotations. I've tried to experiment with this on test.d but haven't made any real headway. In a longer term, I think that it would benefit the community here to 1.) be the focus of more outreach since the community is smaller and the site is far less confusing than (e.g.) Wikipedia and 2.) to find some way of marketing or branding where we can pair quotations with images from c: to have on-demand user-generated gear (t-shirts or coffee mugs) with proceeds going to the WMF and specifically putting money toward the Wikiquote communities. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little interest or objection to any marketing projects which might be developed by anyone for the Wikimedia Foundation, but I actually have much less regard and some repugnance for the database concept being proposed. I would not object to it being developed as a separate option, but truly have no enthusiasm for the idea, and don’t believe it is all that easily workable or desirable. Such a project might be called a "QuoteBase" or something along those lines — but from my perspectives it isn't actually much of a wiki, and should certainly not replace the present project nor ursurp the Wikiquote name. If it is ever developed to any extent perhaps a designation such as "Wikimedia Quotebase" or something similar would be appropriate. Your apparent enthusiasm for such a format doesn’t preclude my support for your nomination as an admin here — but I certainly do not wish to see this project transformed into that one, nor entirely displaced by it. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 08:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalki: Sure. Nor would an admin on en.wq have the authority or ability to unilaterally make any of those changes. In that respect, it's pretty harmless to give me advanced permissions. My only point in bringing it up above was simply that I've thought about the site, how it operates, and how it could operate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I can support this admin nomination, and can even accept potential development of an experimental auxiliary project of such character as has been indicated above, despite having no actual enthusiasm for it. I am not likely to ever become very involved in such, if it ever is developed — but I will restate that I certainly have no wish to see the wiki project which Wikiquote has been transformed into or replaced by any such "database format" project, which I perceive to be in many ways far more problematic, and far less appealing overall. I would strongly oppose those sort of efforts. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 10:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per UDScott (though I share the concerns raised by hiàn and Kalki). Good luck. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2018 (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.