Wikiquote talk:Requests for adminship

Archives

1 / 2 / 3

Closing Votes of confidence

Should the policy at WQ:VOC be revised to allow anyone to close a vote of confidence? When last I checked this closer was not a bureaucrat. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Cirt didn't "close" the discussion, he merely hatted it. That is to say, he didn't make a declaration of what the result of the discussion was. Cirt's follow-up request at Meta is slightly ambiguous - it could be taken as announcing a result, or as asking a steward to evaluate the discussion and make a decision based on that evaluation. However, it lends itself more to the first interpretation. I do think we should clearly delineate who can close a confidence vote, and it certainly should not be an involved editor. BD2412 T 19:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not seeing the ambiguity. He neglected to post a closing statement here, but he clearly closed it, archived it, and requested removal by a Steward with a closing statement there.

I think it is clearly delineated that it should be a Bureaucrat, and I fully agree that a vote should not be closed by the person who made the motion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

True. The removal of rights can always be reversed. I will ask an uninvolved bureaucrat to officially close the discussion. BD2412 T 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I hadn't read that last line, and thought that consensus was clear in this case, and thought that Bureaucrats didn't have the ability to remove sysop rights at this website. -- Cirt (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrats don't have the ability to remove sysop rights; nevertheless, closing discussions relating to user rights is a matter for 'crats. BD2412 T 20:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Understood. Got it. Message received. Communication comprehended. Transmission internalized. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

oops

Apologies: I just got home a short while ago, checked a few pages and then walked away from my computer for a few minutes — when I returned I saw that I had somehow accidentally reverted the latest revision of this page without having intending to, probably by inadvertent pressure on my mouse as I was leaving my desk, and have now corrected that, and am getting back to work here, again in a rush to do a few things before leaving. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Duration?

How comes that WikiLubber's RfA was intended to close on 28 November 2018 but ended up lasting until—err—5 February the following year?! ——SerialNumber54129 14:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129, basically a smaller project with only four crats, two of which haven't made any edits in 3+ years. GMG^talk 14:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Blimey  :) so it basically means that candidates have to wait for a crat to come along, however long it takes? I wonder—just thinking aloud more than anything—what would happen if, hypothetically, all the votes in that RfA in the first 7 days were supports, but after, opposes piled on. Would the crat restrict their judgement to the first week? ——SerialNumber54129 14:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

On edit: Looks optimum, then :) ——SerialNumber54129 14:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably the better option overall is just to ping one of our two active crats. Koavf did so, although he waited quite a while. I just shot BD2412 an email, but we had also corresponded via email previously, so I already had his contact information. GMG^talk 14:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)