Last modified on 31 January 2015, at 17:13

Wikiquote:Requests for adminship

Here you can make a request for adminship and other special user rights on English Wikiquote. See Wikiquote:Administrators for what this entails and for a list of current admins.


Current English Wikiquote policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Wikiquote contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. Most users seem to agree that the more administrators there are the better.

Administrators should register a valid email address and allow other users to send them messages in preferences, or give an email address on their user page.

If you want to become an administrator, please use the box below, filling out all the required areas and replacing "USERNAME" with your user name. Any user can comment on your request -- they might express reservations (because, for example, they suspect you will abuse your new-found powers, or if you've joined very recently), but hopefully they will approve and say lovely things about you. If this is not your first RfA, put a 2 (or whatever number RfA it may be) after "USERNAME" in the box.

Once you have saved your RfA page, add it to the Nominations for adminship section. Adminship nominations must be posted for at least one week, to provide opportunity for comments and voting, before a bureaucrat will make the promotion if warranted.

For closed votes, see #Past discussions.

Current time is 18:03:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Votes of confidence

See WQ:VP#Vote of confidence

Restricted access depends on the continued support of the community. This may be tested by a vote of confidence, in which a simple majority (50%+1) must support the user's continued access for it to be retained. (What access a discussion concerns should be explicitly noted in the discussion's introduction.) Any user may propose a vote of confidence, but at least three established users must support the need for one before it can be called.

In the case of a called proposal, the user may not use the restricted access for any non-trivial action at any time until the vote is closed. A bureaucrat will eventually archive the discussion and, if so decided, request removal of restricted access by a steward.

Nominations for adminship

Note: Nominations have to be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, please also leave a message on their talk page and inform them about their listing on this page, and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination. You may nominate yourself (in which case you have automatically accepted the nomination).

Requests for checkuser

These are requests for the right to perform CheckUser actions, not requests that particular actions be performed, those are done on the noticeboard.

Please note that for a request to succeed in this section a minimum of 25 support votes is required in accordance with Meta policy.

Requests for bureaucratship

NB: Discussions in this section should last at least 14 days.

Requests for importing right

The import function allows editors to upload specially formatted text into Wikiquote, or to transwiki such material after it is exported from another Wikimedia project. Only a Meta steward can add or drop any user's importing right. After requests are approved here, they will be reported to m:Steward requests/Permissions.

None currently

Votes of confidence

See #Votes of confidence.

InvisibleSun (talk · contributions)

  1. Zero activity on Wikiquote since 2010 [1]. Also inactive on Wikipedia [2].
  2. Currently holds both Bureaucrat and Admin flags [3].
  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)

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


  • Remove, as nominator, per above. -- Cirt (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove, doesn't need either flag considering they have been inactive for so long. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove seems to be inactive for the past few years. I don't believe this user needs the flag at this time. Eurodyne (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove per nominator, and it has been a long time. OccultZone (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove No need for a small wiki to keep a bloated list of Admins, most of whom are inactive.. A year of inactivity is fine but 4 years is not...--Stemoc 22:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove unless user responds. No response to talk page notices or requests. Last edit, 06:18, 11 April 2010, last logged action was in March before that. No global edits after that are visible (but account was never attached to SUL). Removal should cover both admin and 'crat rights. --Abd (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 [4] 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[5][6]). 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)
@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)


  • 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)
  • 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)
    • Thank you. I think the two (2) years of inactivity parameter is a good metric going forwards. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • Agree with everything stated above, by Abd, thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Requests for flag removal

This section is used for notification (and comment) only. To be effective, it should go to m:Steward requests/Permissions#Removal of access. Requests by the community will occur as #votes of confidence.

Current administrators

Administrators are marked with "(Sysop)" in the list of user accounts, bureaucrats with "(Bureaucrat)" and checkusers with "(Checkuser)". For information on administrators and bureaucrats, see Wikiquote:Administrators.

If you need to contact an administrator, post a message on WQ:AN or on the talk page of one or several of the userpages below. Administrators can also be contacted privately by using the "email this user" link on the page, if you have registered an email address of your own.

An automatically generated list of current administrators is available here.

The following users currently have sysop privileges on the English Wikiquote:

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

Past discussions