Wikiquote

Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Archives/2007

< Wikiquote:Requests for adminship

Here you can read past requests for adminship. See Wikiquote:Administrators for what this entails and for a list of current admins. Current requests and on-going discussion are on Wikiquote:requests for adminship. The current list of administrators are available.

This page archives requests in 2007.

Requests for checkuser edit

Herbythyme edit

I nominate Herbythyme for checkuser rights for the following reasons:

  • He is a model Wikimedian: He holds the sysop bit not only here, but on Wikibooks and the Commons;
  • He also hold the checkuser bit on Wikibooks and Wikimedia Commons; hence, he knows how to use the ability.
  • He also requests checkuser very frequently; access to the tools will save stress for him.

In short, I believe that if anyone deserves the checkuser bit, it is Herbythyme. Will {talk) 17:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but declined. I will elaborate on the reasons because it is important for the community to understand. I see this as a position of trust and my involvement with the community is far to recent to seek this. There is a need for the tools here and I will do all I can to see that two active members of the community get these tools. I will also do all I can to help them use these rights. Having said that in the context of this community these rights are primarily for dealing with users whose contributions can only be called vandalism. When we do come up with two - support them, these tools are nothing that should worry any conventional user. With thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 18:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your thoughtful reply, Herbythyme. I fully agree trust takes time to grow, and it cannot be transferred. In my humble opinion, it wouldn't however be not a bad choice for us English Wikiquote to have you serve as CU too, in a pair of another ... so ... for example, Jeff Q perhaps? I respect Kalki, the oldest in our active sysophood, however I am not sure if he would like to expose his identity even to the Foundation. On the contrary, I am sure Jeff Q won't mind. And anyway, Herby, you are most experienced among us as CU. --Aphaia 10:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Aphaia (as I was just saying somewhere else)... if Aphaia can't be convinced to be the watcher (everyone seems to agree that piling much of the WORK on Jeffq seems a good approach (grin)...) and if CBrown can't be convinced, and since Kalki demurred already, you're a good choice. That you already hold it on Commons makes it even better. I have no doubt you'd bring your usual diligence and thoroughness to the role. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Herby is right to be cautious about standing for CheckUser here without yet having a long history, since this is a community decision. But he's clearly qualified for it and trustworthy with it, so I'm hoping that regardless of what happens with other candidates, he will consider being added to the CheckUser rolls down the road, especially if we wind up needing additional coverage. In any case, I'm sure whoever gains these rights here will be calling on his experience to help them. (I know I will if I get the responsibility.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Lar, though I cannot serve the function of a CheckUser on Wikimedia, I will of course be available for help in blocking and interpretting the CU results, as I know Herby will. Cbrown1023 talk 19:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reset

I will certainly assist the above users in anyway I can as I am sure all the community will. If there are CU specific issues my limited knowledge (although growing quite quickly!) is available. --Herby talk thyme 09:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aphaia (talk · contributions) edit

I request for checkuser access, since

  • Regarding the current disruptions on this community, and a pile of requests which are not always swiftly processed, I think now we need local CUs [pl.].
  • The checkuser policy says that each local project should have at least 2 CUs for monitoring. As you may know, I am not always active, specially when I am involved deeply to the foundation level activities (e.g. Election), but I expect I can be ready to serve in the emergency.
  • I love Wikiquote, and would like to help it out as possible as I can. I confess however for the sake of honesty sometimes I register myself as a user whose home project is Meta, not Wikiquote.
  • The checkuser policy says users with CUs must be over 18 and the majority of age in the jurisdiction they reside. I satisfy this condition. The Foundation knows my identity (some of them at the Board even know my snail mail address or cellphone), so no further confirmation is required. Also, as an Election committee member, I have dealt with registered users' IP addresses over thousands and be aware of those confidentiality. I expect I have a good record to respect this kind of confidentiality in several occasions.
  • Note: I am aware we need at least two CUs. So I'll very appreciate one another candidate, either nominated or requesting. --Aphaia 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support: I fully trust Aphaia to use the checkuser tools responsibly. Though I myself have declined to seek the use of them, I know that there should be at least 2 or 3 people here with the ability to use them to respond to some of the more persistent efforts at vandalism and trolling. Hopefully the process will not take very long for the ability to be granted to at least 2 people. ~ Kalki 01:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - without reservation... and if you need any help, don't hesitate to ask. ++Lar: t/c 02:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support without reservation too. Will {talk) 02:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - without question but you do need another one or this will not be valid (Jeff??) --Herby talk thyme 06:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I strongly support Aphaia for his/her request. very helpful and trustworthy--McNoddy 09:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Although I'm not an active member of Wikiquote, I understand 25+ votes are needed in order for stewards to grant checkuser rights, so I'll give my opinion. I know Aphaia from mostly from Meta - she is an extremely hardworking community member, and while we don't always agree on things, I have the upmost respect for her and what she does for Wikimedia. I think granting her checkuser rights here would be a positive thing all round. Majorly (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. A very trustworthy user. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I already trust her for these kinds of sensitive responsibilities anyway, but her experience handling identity and privacy issues involving the entire Wikimedia community (e.g., elections) strikes me as a clear demonstration that she can be trusted to treat CheckUser requests prudently and effectively. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Aphaia has definitely shown herself to be capable in a role like this. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support' without reservation. ~ UDScott 15:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. - InvisibleSun 15:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Very Strong Support I have suggested that we need local CheckUsers many times and each time, I have had these two candidates in mind. They have the trust, expertise, and knowledge to use these tools to the best of their abilities and for the good of Wikiquote. Cbrown1023 talk 19:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Aphaia is clearly very capable, hard-working, and entirely to be trusted. Antiquary 08:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - seems trustworthy. Webaware talk 08:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Without reservation master sonT - C 19:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support--Jusjih 16:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Trusted editor and admin. Tyrenius 20:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support--Inesculent 07:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Phaedriel - 06:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support --Whiteknight 18:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. -- JaxlTalk 19:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support My thinking essentially mirrors that of Majorly. Jahiegel 04:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support --Az1568 06:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support No worries about giving this nom CU here. Feel that this will greatly benefit this project. FloNight 15:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Certainly, she can be trusted and will definitely be an asset. Editor at Large 08:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support No possible doubt on her competence and reliability.--Poetlister 11:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voted closed; stewards notified. Cbrown1023 talk 22:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffq (talk · contributions) edit

I will nominate Jeff for these rights in the hope that he will accept them. To grant the rights the stewards require two CUs on any project. Jeff is a long serving admin on this project and someone obviously trusted by the community and by me. I ask you all to support this nomination in order to help control vandalism on this Wiki. --Herby talk thyme 08:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Acceptance - Thank you, Herby. I do accept the nomination. I plan to post a more substantive acceptance later today which outlines my hopes and concerns for this new Wikiquote capability, hopefully without shooting myself in the foot or getting anyone to reconsider their support. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I'll try to be uncharacteristically brief. ☺ Most Wikiquote vandalism and disruption is still well-handled by ordinary editors' warnings and sysops' blocks. But with our growth, we have been attracting more attention from editors who either routinely ignore policies and practices, especially regarding sockpuppetry, or who know enough about Mediawiki to know when our sysops can't easily discern the true bad-faith editors and imposters from innocent victims. We can call for help from stewards at Meta, but current response times suggest that they are too busy to readily handle the growing number of requests from the hundreds of Wikimedia projects. As a very visible and popular project, it is incumbent upon us to establish local users with CheckUser privileges to quickly deal with these suspected sockpuppets and other disrupters.
      The editors given CheckUser rights must be very careful not to reveal any information not absolutely necessary for stopping these problems without causing collateral harm to the vast majority of existing and potential editors. I hope that my record of caution when making accusations, my work in assembling evidence to justify blocks against some of our more sophisticated imposters, and my willingness to acknowlege and correct any errors I make will allow the Wikiquote community to trust me with this sensitive responsibility. (End campaign speech. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1. Support as nom --Herby talk thyme 08:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Jeffq's knowledge and understanding of wikiquote is great. He's always there to lend a hand or to guide. --McNoddy 09:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support without reservation. --Aphaia 10:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support without reservation. and if you need any help, don't hesitate to ask Herby! :) . ++Lar: t/c 10:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support pending Jeffq's acceptance of nomination. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support without reservation. Will {talk) 13:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support without reservation, know that he has accepted the nomination. I would never want to pressure anyone into additional duties here, especially someone who has already given so abundantly of his time to the project. ~ Kalki 13:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I don't know that I would have nominated him (not that I don't believe he's well-suited, but because I wouldn't want to overburden him) but since someone else did, and he's accepted, I'll definitely throw my support behind him. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Supportwith no reservations. ~ UDScott 15:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. - InvisibleSun 15:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Very Strong Support I have suggested that we need local CheckUsers many times and each time, I have had these two candidates in mind. They have the trust, expertise, and knowledge to use these tools to the best of their abilities and for the good of Wikiquote. Cbrown1023 talk 19:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Another Very Strong Support. Jeff is in every way the ideal candidate – we're lucky he's willing to take on yet more work. Antiquary 08:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - seems trustworthy. Webaware talk 08:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support--Jusjih 16:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Trusted editor and admin. Tyrenius 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - without reservation master sonT - C 22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support--Inesculent 07:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support --Whiteknight 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Phaedriel - 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. -- JaxlTalk 19:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Jahiegel 04:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support --Az1568 06:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Yes, this experienced and trusted user will serve this community well as a local CU. FloNight 15:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Has shown his ability already in recent cases of sockpuppetry and alleged sockpuppetry.--Poetlister 11:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support--Epousesquecido 21:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed, steward notified. Cbrown1023 talk 22:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank everyone for their support and kind words. I will try to live up to the expectations, and invite questions and comments about my efforts at any time on my talk page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for adminship edit

Ubiquity (talk · contributions) edit

Ubiquity (talk) self-nominated 3:50 PM UTC November 23, 2007.

Ubiquity is now an administrator. ~ Kalki 21:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone, for your support. I'm really looking forward to working more closely with you. --Ubiquity 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saikano II (talk · contributions) edit

  • I wish to be an Administor with this site! I may have a very slight history on the site! I belive I have the potintal and common sense to do the right thing! Please eept my request and at least concider my wish! --Saikano II 15:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm afraid that as yet you lack the experience - only a few dozen edits under either this name or your old one (many of which are to your user page). I hope that you will come back in a few months' time.--Cato 19:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. I'm afraid I cannot see any benign reason why Saikano would ask for this responsibility at this time. We have just closed early another self-nomination for the very same reason he cites — inadequate history on the project. Furthermore, he has claimed to have forgotten his first username's password, which is hardly the mark of a responsible editor, and then used many sockpuppets (against Wikiquote policy) to repeated ask admins to fix this problem, even after being told this was not technologically possible. He is also a Wikipedia editor who has been banned for disruption. These problems had led me to do a CheckUser on his usernames last month to uncover exactly what was happening here. I had felt at the time that it was arguably useful to assume good faith, especially as his problem edits, other than the sockpuppetry, were largely in the past. But now, in reviewing his recent edits, I found this pasting of an entire article into our Tornado article, which was wrong on at least three counts:
    1. Wikiquote does not collect entire copyrighted works, like an newspaper article, only pithy excerpts.
    2. The justification for this was personal testimony that Saikano II had permission, which is never acceptable.
    3. This testimony was added to the article itself, an inappropriate use of signing an addition to an article.
    I have never seen even the greenest newcomer commit so many basic wiki and Wikiquote errors in so few edits, but I have seen many vandals and disrupters do this kind of work. And it's hard to interpret his self-nomination for a responsibility he is clearly incapable of executing as anything but mockery. For this reason, I not only oppose the nomination, but I feel that this is the last straw, and that he should be indefinitely blocked. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I'm closing this request per Jeff and others views. I was tempted when I first look but again Jeff's comments confirm my view. I have blocked indefinitely both the original Saikano and this one. However I would suggest, based on past performance, that we keep a close eye on this. If anyone feels I have acted too harshly they are welcome to let me know and I will review it. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support closing the RFA and indef blocking the accounts. If the user wants to open a new account and edit responsibly in the future that can still happen but there is no indication that the user wants to be a constructive editor now. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I too support the closure and the block. I have never perceived much reason to believe that this user was anything other than a tiresome troll, with malicious intent. ~ Kalki 21:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I too support closing the RFA.--Jusjih 01:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obviously this RfA should be closed and we should have WQ:Snow policy following this and Czac. Has Saikano exhausted the community's patience? If so, then the block is also justified. Poetlister 14:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can scarcely object to closing the RfA - I was the first to oppose - but isn't a permanent block a little over the top?--Cato 21:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CZac (talk · contributions) edit

I nominate myself for adminship. I have edited the English wikipedia for a while and can make a good administrator here. --CZac 13:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I never said I was an admin on the English Wikipedia, Even if i am blocked there is no rule saying that i cant be an admin on wikiquote. --CZac 13:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, my objection is that you have never edited here before and in so far as your experience on Wikipedia is relevant, it argues against you. If you make a few hundred good edits here over the next few months, I wil be happy to ignore your WP history and judge you on your time here.--Cato 13:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What if you went on a deletion spree? You should be allowed to become an administrator provided that you add some articles. Even now, I wouldn't argue against you becoming an administrator for 3 days if you are so excited about it. At this point, I am against your becoming a permanent administrator.--Inesculent 14:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created an article on John C. Maxwell
    • Good, but you're digging a deeper hole for yourself. I'll put that article into Wikiquote format; quotations should be indented with a * not placed in quotation marks, and there should be appropriate categories. Also, not a single quote is sourced, and you've headed them "Attributed" not "Unsourced". Please learn the details of our formatting practices. Look at a few articles created recently by our most experienced users. Look at what Cato, our most recent admin, did before he nominated himself. Poetlister 20:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really, that's it. The article is a copyvio [2] and I'm flagging it as a prod. Poetlister 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. You have too little experience here with no user page or email validation. Please get familiar with what we do here for a few months before trying again.--Jusjih 21:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article on John Maxwell was from the requests for new articles. And i have a user page and an email on the English wikipedia I have also have temporary adminship on some smaller metawiki projects projects so i wont abuse the power. --CZac 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, while we have no equivalent of w:WP:SNOW, the result is obvious. As a sysop who is generally consider to have a right to conclude a given vote, and on my common sense, I declare to close this vote. Thank you for your all participation, folks. --Aphaia 08:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am leaving the english wikiquote. It has many problems and it is completely messed up. It has horrible policies and sometimes no policies, most of the quote pages are messed up, placeholders for year pages, and many other problems that I will not bother to mention. Thank you for your time. I may return later but that is unlikely. Bye --CZac 20:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support Aphaia's early closure of this self-nomination that literally had no chance of succeeding. While English Wikiquote is far from perfect, there is no reason to expect any Wikimedia project to grant adminship to a user who not only had zero edits on the project before requesting this responsibility and position of trust, but had also been cited for problems elsewhere. The few edits this user did in an otherwise reasonable response to the expectation of contributions had so many problems that could have been avoided by learning the policies and practices, that they served as ample evidence that this editor would have taken no care to learn about Wikiquote before wielding admin capability, making them an active danger to the project.
The only reason I held off commmenting before was that I wanted at least one CheckUser-capable editor ready to perform a CU in case the suspicion arose that CZac was not just inadvisedly requesting this responsibility, but might actually be a vandal or sockpuppet with ill intent. Their departure would appear to make this unnecessary.
I regret that CZac refused to accept and learn from the concerns expressed here, as a number of other editors have done successfully in the past. But that is CZac's choice. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Cato (talk · contributions) edit

I have been editing here for six months and have made over 700 edits. The quotations I have added have mainly been in the area of religion, such as the Bible, Joseph H. Hertz and Benedict of Nursia. However, I have worked far more widely in Wikifying articles and adding categories. I created many of the date of death categories, and am currently working on films by country.--Cato 19:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cato is now an administrator. ~ Kalki 23:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Jusjih (talk · contributions) edit

I decided to start using Wikiquote when I found a problem image posted at Bosnian Wikiquote on 28 January 2007 and would like to delink it while keeping my contribution tracked even though I have never understood Bosnian, as Commons Delinkers would not always work at some Wiki sites. Next day (29 January 2007), I registered a username here and started editing. Meanwhile, I am an administrator at nine Wikimedia sites using the same username Jusjih. They are, from the earliest time when I became an admin:

  1. Chinese Wikipedia since 23 September 2004
  2. Multilingual Wikisource since 29 July 2005
  3. Chinese Wiktionary since 3 August 2005
  4. English Wikisource since 18 September 2005
  5. Chinese Wikisource since 20 September 2005
  6. Wikimedia Commons since 18 April 2006
  7. English Wiktionary since 3 May 2006
  8. English Wikipedia since 26 October 2006
  9. Chinese Wikiquote since 5 July 2007

For the past six months, my contributions here, now around 500 edits, have been primarily:

  1. Village pump discussions where I have discussed important matters, such as bringing Category:Living people from Wikipedia.
  2. Participations in the votes for deletion.
  3. Adding subcategories of Category:Dead people after Village pump discussions.
  4. Cleaning up uncategorized pages.
  5. Some removals of IP vandalism and warnings.

With my long-time experience administering so many Wikimedia sites, more active on Commons and English Wikipedia, I would like to apply myself for English Wikiquote adminship, so I can:

  1. Close votes for deletion and delete properly nominated pages. (I delete problem images routinely on Commons and English Wikipedia where there are always too many problem images. Occasionally I would request deletion reviews there.)
  2. Roll back vandalism faster. (I have found it efficient to use when the reversion would imply very obvious reason.)

I have registered a valid email address here.--Jusjih 17:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support. Jusjih has been a very active particpant in the maintenance of the site, and given the credentials on other wiki sites, I feel that this user would be a valuable member of the admin team. ~ UDScott 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I know this user on Commons too - no question on trust and a capable contributor --Herby talk thyme 18:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. We can always use another well-trusted editor as an admin, and greater cross-wiki familiarity can usually be a significant asset. ~ Kalki 18:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - the user is very active, and if they can pass the extreme scrutiny of enwiki's RFA process, along with the nine mops he already has, he's unlikely to abuse the tools either. Will {talk) 01:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support This user is assiduous.--Inesculent 01:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Good administrative editing contributions. BTW do you also (plan to) translate quotes to Chinese? I found it impressive how this user (Lecter) translated many long quotes I added on a page within a single day... iddo999 06:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I have time, I will try translating quotes to Chinese, but much better when interwiki links are available for reciprocal references. I will try translating national anthems first.--Jusjih 14:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. This user with sysop tools will be a great benefit to the project. FloNight 14:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support A good editor and I see no problems whatever.--Poetlister 16:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Not only a hard working Wikiquoter, but I'm also familiar with Jusjih's excellent work at Wikisource, where he's a familiar and dedicated name. I should have checked he wasn't an admin here as well - I assumed he already was one! Phaedriel - 16:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per Poetlister and Phaedriel - Modernist 21:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. - InvisibleSun 03:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Good CV for the job. Tyrenius 03:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Webaware talk 09:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Churlish to do otherwise!--Cato 23:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Solid maintenance work here and demonstrated knowledge of our policies makes me happy to welcome this experienced cross-project admin. I would also note that Jusjih was kind enough to inform me politely of his/her experience, without chiding me for my ignorance, when I tediously explained Transwiki to him/her on WQ:VP. Avoiding that temptation strikes me as an excellent indicator of mature temperment and ability to work well with the occasional fool. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For your information, I am a male and talking about transwikiing, please go to Wikiquote:Village_pump#Probable_GFDL_problems_with_improper_transwikis for my recent finding from Meta.--Jusjih 13:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support But of course... Cbrown1023 talk 02:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Jusjih is now an admin. ~ Kalki 02:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, I missed the vote. My voice is, Support. --Aphaia 20:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Sceptre (talk · contributions) edit

I'd rather wait several more days before requesting - but having needed to request administrator action several times recently (mostly due to vandalism), I think I should request now. I keep a rather watchful eye over RC, I'm quite active, and I won't abuse the tools - I did hold them at Wikipedia for seven months (and the situation that caused me to rescind them is generally considered to be the right thing to do). I hand myself over to the community to see if I'm suitable for the mop. Will {talk) 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Just wanted you to know I hadn't missed this request, just been a bit too busy to check you out. Hope to give my opinions tomorrow. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Nearly 500 edits, here for over a year although most edits were in the last three months. However, your Wikipedia contributions can also be taken into account. Conclusion: has demonstrated sustained commitment to the project. Showed competence while having admin tools at Wikipedia, and the circumstances of the voluntary desysopping show a responsible attitude. Limited participation in internal Wikiquote debates, at least until recently; notwithstanding that, I think you can be trusted and therefore I support. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support--Inesculent 07:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support--Jusjih 14:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I meant to come back to this one too so - sorry. I've read around places & my view are very similar to Fys's. My conclusion is too - Support --Herby talk thyme 15:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think this user has stuck with helping out on projects when other users would have been discouraged and given up, and I think he won't abuse the tools so I find myself in agreement with Fys and Herby. Support ++Lar: t/c 02:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose for now. This is a tough call for me. My main expectations for Wikiquote sysops are a substantial history with the project; useful, responsible editing in a broad range of topics; significant assistance with maintenance issues; and demonstrated awareness of Wikiquote policies and practices (especially for Wikipedians, as WQ is rather different than WP in some important ways). Sceptre comes down on both sides of too many of these expectations for me to feel comfortable supporting him just yet. He has a modest but growing history here, but is very experienced at WP. His article focus seems much too narrow, but he has done some good maintenance work, like VfD and vandalism patrolling. His command of WQ practices seems to have some gaps that I'd prefer to see filled in before supporting adminship. I'm very impressed with the self-critique that led to his voluntary WP desysopping, which shows a maturity unusual for someone even twice his age. But I'd rather see his perhaps ill-advised quick admin actions (there) replaced with more patient and thoughtful reactions (here), instead of after-the-fact corrections. Wikiquote is a much looser project than WP, so it's incumbent upon the admins to be even more careful about taking advantage of this looseness, especially since we have relatively few people who are likely to call attention to problems. I have little doubt we will eventually benefit from having him as a sysop, but as with Essjay, I prefer a little more local seasoning first. (On the other hand, I didn't regret being outvoted on Essjay. Despite some later problems, he was a very helpful sysop while he was here.) ~ Jeff "Mr. Caution" Q (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak oppose. I too would like to see a bit more seasoning before Sceptre is made an admin. An example of my experience with this user can be seen with his recent decision to remove nearly all of the quotes on the Michael Savage page (under the guise of removing unsourced material) without taking the time to carefully look at what he was deleting. This resulted in some sourced quotes also being deleted. It's not that I disagreed with the removal of many of what were unsourced, specious quotes that may or may not have been said by this person, but rather the lack of care in doing so. I would like to see a sysop be more careful when editing. As Jeff said, I would like to see his experience grow and his focus expand. With such seasoning, I'm sure he can help (as he already has with some maintenance tasks), but for now I don't know that I am fully comfortable with him as a sysop. But I could certainly go with the results of the vote (hence my "weak" opposition), if the majority feels otherwise. If he is granted sysop status, I would just like to ask for a bit more caution in his future editing. ~ UDScott 15:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose along the lines of Jeffq and agreed not an easy call. Experienced WP editors and (ex/)admins need to make an adjustment to the different WQ culture. WP practices cannot be assumed wholesale on WQ and the differences only emerge through interaction with established WQ editors. I don't feel Sceptre has yet had enough of this yet. Where there is interaction it reveals there is still a need for adjustment (and maybe less haste), as in the last three posts on User talk:Sceptre: "CU", "Michael Savage" and "In reply". Although his experience, knowledge and participation is undoubtedly valuable, I don't feel there is yet sufficient integration into the community. When this doubt is no longer there will be the time for adminship. Tyrenius 12:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw this nomination - as I can see by replies from Jeff, UDScott, and Tyrenius, I do need to integrate myself quite some more. Thank you, those in support and in oppose. Will {talk) 13:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herbythyme (talk · contributions) edit

I really had not planned on this now if at all. I will fully understand if the community feel that my contribution to Wikiquote is not what you require in a sysop. However for the third time in a relatively short space of time I have had to request a steward to deal with vandalism here so it is possible that you may feel I have something to offer. I have much to learn about Wikiquote and its way, I have far less to learn about vandals and their ways as I do hold the tools elsewhere. I have strong views about admin inactivity and as such I will request the removal of any rights I hold after three months of inactivity - if I do not this statement may be used to request the removal of the rights on Meta. Given my lack of knowledge I would not anticipate deleting anything other than obvious test pages/vandalism for a while. However I would be able to assist with vandal blocking and protection. Should you not feel this request is justified I assure you I would continue to do what I can to help Wikiquote.

I will happily answer any questions you may have. My thanks for your time & consideration --Herby talk thyme 11:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would point out you confused irrelevant things here; I know we two disagree(d) how meta deletion policy should be applied, but I haven't figure how you drew this consequence. Anyway it is your choice, not others including me. Good luck. --Aphaia 18:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm usually the first to object to other projects' users becoming sysops here without more Wikiquote experience, but Herby's request is primarily to aid his recent substantial efforts to stem WQ vandalism without having to call in a steward. (Despite our record number of sysops, we seem to be missing them at critical times lately. That's not a criticism, just an observation. We all contribute as we can and wish to, and with my own reduction in activity, I'm in no position to criticize.) I've confirmed via email that User:Herbythyme is indeed Wikibooks' sysop b:User:Herbythyme, so I trust his ability to execute these responsibilities. Besides A-V work, he has contributed to a number of VfD discussions. I'm also encouraged by his emailed hope that he can do more than just admin work for our project, and by his acknowledgement of the need to learn about each project's idiosyncracies. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I also would normally object until a user has had more experience with Wikiquote, but Herby's desire to fight vandalism is very evident based on activity in recent times. I'm sure we would appreciate help in that area. ~ UDScott 13:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If it's good enough for Jeffq, it's good enough for me:-) Herbythyme's administrative contribs seem good and helpful, as mentioned. iddo999 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Herbythyme has been especially helpful in fighting vandals in recent months. Even on the days when some of us can devote enough of our time to at least be monitoring things here much of the day, there can still be substantial gaps. I just woke up from what was my typical 3 - 4 hrs sleep a day to discover the recent spate of inane vandal activity that occurred for over a half-hour. We still need more people we can rely on as active admins, and Herbythyme has certainly proven highly reliable in responding to vandalism. ~ Kalki 14:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Herbythyme is an experienced wikipedian, and very eager to deal with cross wiki vandalism. Also, not mentioned yet, Herby was asked to be nominated to is granted checkuser on Commons, not only on Wikibooks. As UDScott, his dealing with vandals has been efficient and well-thought with awareness possible project policy diferences. Herby has been a great help, and more, with new tools. --Aphaia 14:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aphaia is kind however a little premature about my rights on Commons. I am a sysop there but as yet I do not have CU rights. I am on holiday (and completely off wiki!) at the end of next week. Once I return I do intend to seek CU rights there. As well as helping Commons it would allow me to getting a better picture of some crosswiki vandalism --Herby talk thyme 15:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herbythyme is now an administrator (as of 2007·06·26 23:57 UTC). ~ Kalki 00:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


AFUSCO (talk · contributions) edit

AFUSCO

  • Speedy reject Sorry, you don't show sufficient experience. Even your formatting of request was inappropraite (you put only your name on the remark "put your request on the top" and it is only your edit). I reverted your first request which was your first edit on this project. Now, perhaps you are on a good faith, but still your request is submitted in an inappropriate manner. Therefore in an admin capacity of vote closing, I reject your request. --Aphaia 07:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Cbrown1023 (talk · contributions) edit

I have been an editor of Wikiquote since August 7, 2006. During that time I have accumulated more than 640 edits by welcoming users, writing articles, and contributing to Wikiquote discussions.

I think that I could certainly use the tools. I am an active contributor in the deletion debates, which I can close if given the sysop flag. I have reverted vandalism and warned users, so I can use the block and rollback buttons as well. I have requested different MediaWiki changes that I will be able to edit if I am granted administartive status. I have also nominated articles for speedy deletion, which I would be able to just delete instead of leaving them for someone else to clean up.

I am also an active administrator on Wikipedia and Meta, where I already delete, protect, and block frequently. I believe I have used the tools effectively on the English Wikipedia with over 1570 admin actions there, and believe I can be trusted with them here as well. I am looking for community feedback on this application for adminship. E-mail is also enabled and my contact information is located on my user page. Cbrown1023 talk 17:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Being an admin on the English Wikipedia and on Meta, Cbrown1023 is very experienced with Wikimedia procedures, and the noticeable increase in involvement on this project has been very helpful. I am sure that other admins who are far more constantly involved in daily maintenance than I now usually tend to be (and in greeting newcomers than I have ever been) will appreciate the help. ~ Kalki 05:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In the past month, Cbrown1023 has gone from one of our many unsung solid contributors who edit periodically but very usefully, to a major force in filling in many of our critical gaps in maintenance. Besides the general anti-vandalism, deletion discussions, and article improvement, I personally appreciate his/her having taken up much of the load of welcoming 30-50 new users a day. S/he also appears to be a better template coder than I've been willing to become, so I'm looking forward to better templates that serve actual, pressing needs here, from someone who has shown an ongoing commitment to the project, unlike another we've dealt with recently. Experience as a WP and Meta admin is invaluable, but Cbrown1023 also seems to have quickly adapted this experience to the differences with Wikiquote's operation, which answers my usual concern about experienced Wikipedians becoming WQ admins too soon. As Kalki suggests, I'd welcome this earnest and accomplished sysop. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for now and not personally. I appreciate his eagerness on this project but recent his edits force me not to join the choir. It would be a sign of immaturity or recklessness or just occasional mistakes. Considering the general atmosphere, I finally reach the conclusion it would be not so bad to express some concerns about his discernment and tendency to ignore formality, e.g. showed at Wikiquote talk:WikiProject Policy Revision; I expect showing here my concerns help him acting more considerably and finally edifying our community. --Aphaia 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ? Cbrown1023 talk 17:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't agree wiht your reasoning. Most of us know how behind we are in cleanup and finalizing of policy. After Essjay left, a great deal of the policy writing stopped. I seem to be the only one who is trying to push our policies along, other than Jeff and he is doing great but it is a lot of work for one person. I didn't sign something as my name because I know how touchy you guys get at editing other's comments and I didn't believe my opening good enough, so I wanted you to change it. Cbrown1023 talk 17:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please also note that I had described on the Administrator's noticeboard (which I believe you check frequently) why I dint' sign it Cbrown1023 talk. Cbrown1023 talk 17:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I, too, was uncomfortable with your pseudo-signature on that page, Cbrown1023, though I understand the honest motivation for it. I would recommend replacing it with your own signature with the original timestamp. Editors here are more likely to be comfortable posting signed responses to your initiative than to change its wording on a talk page. The problem arises from the attempt to use a WikiProject structure in a community that is not interested in WikiProjects. (WikiProjects have some peculiar notions about credit and first-person posting to pseudo-policy pages that I, at least, find extremely distasteful, and I think this only complicates attempts to move policy forward.) When Essjay started this WikiProject, I warned him it wasn't likely to bear fruit, and we don't have that many additional regular contributions now over what we had then. Reading what the community is willing to tackle is not an uncommon challenge to new, energetic contributors, especially from Wikipedia. You might contrast Essjay's difficulties with MosheZadka's considerable success in not only moving many things forward, but also becoming our most prolific editor while he was here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think he has shown an ability to get down to the hard work of sysops and knows Wikiquote policy to a degree that gives me confidence he will be a good candidate. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 23:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cbrown1023 is now an administrator at Wikiquote. ~ Kalki 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for adminship edit

Poetlister (talk · contributions) edit

I nominate Poetlister as sysop candidate. She nodded to my question if she was interested in joining our admin team (cf. User talk:Poetlister and User talk:Aphaia). She is relatively new for our project (since 2007/02) but an experienced Wikimedian (joined Wikipedia in 2005). On Wikiquote then she has been quite active as a prolific editor focusing on poetry and a good maintainer. I think her as a good asset of our community already, and expect her deeper involvement benefits our project greatly. --Aphaia 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted to accept.--Poetlister 18:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support : though relatively new to this project to be nominated, Poetlister has made over 500 helpful edits since registering here, and prior activity on Wikipedia since 2005 indicates a sufficient degree of awareness of Wikimedia policies and practices. ~ Kalki 18:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have noted Poetlister's contributions here. I have also interacted with her on WP. My observation is that she is capable and intelligent, also able to deal with problematic situations. Tyrenius 05:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Industrious wikifier, source-checker, intro fixer, polite anti-vandal worker, VfD and VP participant. We would surely benefit from her inclusion among the sysops. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poetlister is now an administrator. ~ Kalki 22:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 (talk · contributions) edit

  • If User:BD2412 isn't already an administrator, then its editing rights shall be enhanced forthwith because of arduous work in terms of attending to chores and experience.--Inesculent 04:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the nominator: Please ask him first and confirm his acceptance of nomination. Without assertion from the candidate, no nomination should be valid. --Aphaia 08:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I accept the nomination. In light of our policy being to give the tools generously to users who can be trusted with them, I'd like to think I fall into that category. I have been an admin on Wikipedia since 2005, and on Wiktionary since 2006. My interest in Wikiquote has picked up of late, and I have gotten to the point where I do wish I had those tools when I see vandalism or a nonsense page pop up. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is difficult to oppose someone who has been here longer than I have and made more edits. However, many of the edits are fairly minor, like adding {{Wiktionary}} templates, although in aggregate he is certainly a very valued contributor. Also, BD2412 is not fully cognisant of our policies and customs, like where to place stubs or the need for categories. As a recent example, take Edie Sedgwick. He started by flagging it for speedy deletion. Had he been an admin, he might have deleted it himself and that would be the end of it. As he couldn't, he had second thoughts and improved it. However, he used the wrong stub, in the wrong place, and failed to add categories.--Cato 19:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I promise to get better as I go. With respect to Edie Sedgwick, had I been an administrator, I would indeed have deleted the article. That would have been a proper administrative action given the state that it was in (containing nothing at all except "i like to dance....do you?"). However, I would still have done essentially the same thing that I did, which was to investigate the subject, determine that there was in fact a quoteworthy person by that name, and restore the article with more appropriate content. I have still been unable to verify the mundane quote that was on the page when I tabbed it for deletion, and am removing that quote now. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. BD2412 is a diligent and helpful editor who shows much promise as an administrator. - InvisibleSun 20:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm delighted BD2412 has accepted after declining earlier this year; he's fully trustworthy and could do much more with the mop. Quick before he gets away! Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: BD2412 has a long and commendable editing record here and at other Wikimedia wikis. ~ Kalki 23:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks ok to me --Herby talk thyme 07:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 　Support Yay, BD2412. --Aphaia 08:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Here I would like to clarify my earlier opposition to his CU nomination on the other project, English Wiktionary. As you may have known, there were many candidates and already three CUs, and in my opinion there would be too many CUs regarding their size after successful nominations, but with hindsight I regret my opposition for now: soon after then a CU there stepped down, and there have been the minimum number of the users granted this access (two), so there is sort of instability. Hereby I would stress there was no other reason to oppose him. --Aphaia 08:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Need to keep adding to admin squad users that are trustworthy, knowledgeable, and want to help. BD2412 fills the bill. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have found this user to be thoughtful and always on the lookout for pages to improve, as well as helpfully contributing to discussions on copyright issues (where such help is certainly needed, since this seems to be an ongoing and thorny issue for WQ) ~ UDScott 15:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He has certainly been an active Wikiquote contributor for a while and nobody would deny that he is a known and trusted member of the community.--Poetlister 17:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per above (my very first vote here). :) @pple 18:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Jusjih 01:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support overdue; definitely welcome his prospective addition to the sysop team. Cbrown1023 talk 01:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I wasn't suggesting that I opposed; merely offering (I hope) constructive criticism.--Cato 21:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Many of BD2412's 2500 edits thus far have indeed been small (though useful!) maintenance edits, but he has made other, substantive contributions (both to articles and project pages) for over two years, especially since April-May 2006. As an experienced Wikimedia admin, he could be of great help, but I share Cato's concern about relying too much on that experience. I would ask him to review Wikiquote policies to note the differences (especially from Wikipedia), as I usually do for other projects' admins, but I feel comfortable supporting him in advance of this review. A big bonus for Wikiquote is that BD2412 has identified himself as an intellectual property lawyer. (Sorry for the qualification, but I'm a little leery of definitive statements after the Essjay debacle.) Our delightful arguments on copyright issues here (which tell me that he knows a lot more than I do!) suggest he can be of real help to us on this thorny issue. (I'm not sure how that's a specific argument for adminship, but it certainly can't hurt.) And I would also note that he even weighed in on the organization of our contentious Abortion article, which must mean he is fearless. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of the Essjay situation, I am certainly willing to provide proof of my credentials. Unfortunately, my proposal to divide up the overly long abortion article by date has not gone anywhere (although the separate articles by date persist, as does the article on case law), but I am quite proud that the neat division of the Fictional last words article has stuck. With respect to substantive contributions, I would point to my foundational work on Benjamin N. Cardozo and William O. Douglas (personal heroes), Shaka Zulu, and various entries on religious doctrine (Pantheism, Deism, etc.). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, BD2412 — I didn't mean to be critical. It was more of a dig at my habit of qualifying almost everything I say out of a obsessive need to be precisely correct (not that it saves me from making mistakes!). What I already know about you is that you are extremely well-informed about copyright law and can cite relevant case law (that often has convenient WP articles), making our discussions far more useful than the usual opinionating that goes on in wiki talk pages (of which I'm as guilty as anyone). Argument relevance and accuracy always trump credentials in my book. And don't feel too bad about "Abortion"; that's practically a rite of passage for admins here, and there is probably no permanent solution everyone can accept. (See Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Abortion for a measure of my own frustration, and the community's… shall we say, spirited reaction to it.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 is now an administrator here. ~ Kalki 23:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for bureaucrat access edit

Aphaia (talk · contributions) edit

I request for bureaucrat access on the English Wikiquote. While it seems sufficient for the current workload to have one b'crat (i.e. bureaucrat right wasn't used in the last month; no promotion, no request for changing username, bot flag requesst is not so clouded), and as far as I know our bureaucrat has always been active, I've concluded it might be not a bad idea for the project there are several hands available, regarding the current increase of users. --Aphaia 17:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support : Though language complications can sometimes be a problem, Aphaia has wide familiarity with many Wikimedia projects and concerns, and is far more familiar with many policy details than I am even inclined to be interested in becoming. There could be periods in the months ahead where I actually am out of contact with the internet for many days or even weeks at a time, and Aphaia has always been a responsible and involved administrator. ~ Kalki 18:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Aphaia is one of the most active users and sysops currently on the project. She is heavily involved in bureaucratic areas and is frequently one of the few to tackle tough issues like policy changes. I have no doubt that Aphaia will contribute greatly, be an asset to the project, and work very will with our other bureaucrat (Kalki). Also per Kalki. :) Cbrown1023 talk 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Kalki has done an excellent job as our sole bureaucrat, of course, but I would definitely like to have at least two people in any essential role. Aphaia is unquestionably one of the most broadly experienced Wikimedians (perhaps even the most) in our sysop staff. I have no doubt she can execute the responsibilities of Wikiquote bureaucratship (bureaucrathood?) responsibly and effectively. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - InvisibleSun 21:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Bureaucrats are rarely called on to exercise their powers, but they might be needed at any time. Having only one bureaucrat can be a problem. Aphaia is totally dedicated to the project and has good judgment. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. -- JaxlTalk 00:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - iddo999 01:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aphaia is now a bureaucrat (As of 23:55 2007·05·11 UTC). ~ Kalki 00:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for importing right 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: Agreed to grant rights.--Poetlister 20:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jusjih (talk · contributions) edit

In response to Wikiquote:Village_pump#Probable_GFDL_problems_with_improper_transwikis, I am opening a new section in this project page and requesting the community to approve my request for importing right. As I, a new Meta steward, have to follow the steward policies, I shall not unilaterally grant any users importing rights.--Jusjih 01:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)(admin here and Meta steward)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm not prepared to support any candidates until I've had time to understand the issues in using import/export. But since we have a candidate, I'll make that a top priority for the next few days. I suggest we discuss any issues at Help talk:Import. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I temporarily granted myself import right here through Meta to see that the import form would show up. If you want a demonstration, allow me provisionally and I will show you, better if you say which page to test.--Jusjih 03:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How did you do that without having it show up in the import log? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the appearance of interface (Special:Import) may be different from the users granted import flag, but I may be wrong. Jusjih, Your enlightment will be welcome :) Or just give a look to existing & being used import log(s), e.g. meta import log or English Wikisource import log, for getting its look n' feel (where it is a sysop task, though). --Aphaia 18:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm happy to trust Jusjih to know what he's doing. Poetlister 11:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Jusjih, as you are an administrator on other projects, I am guessing you have quite a bit of experience with importing material? BD2412 T 11:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer the questions of yours here and Jeff Q posted to my talk page, the best examples that I can tell are on Chinese Wiktionary [3] and Chinese Wikisource [4]. Even if you cannot read Chinese, you can find the numbers of imported versions shown in parenthesis. These actions are vital to import the full edit history. My importing rights on these two Chinese Wiki sites have indefinite period.--Jusjih 04:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure if this project is ready to have this feature. That said, when I proposed to ask devs to activate this feature, perhaps one year ago, no reaction has come - either positive or negative. I have no opposition for this request, however presume it would be more beneficial for this project to activate this feature and allows all sysops to use this feature from the projects we specify (English sister projects specially Wikipedia, and/or other Wikiquotes perhaps?), as English Wikisource does from years before. --Aphaia 18:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's certainly a feature we should have. Not sure if "all sysops" need to be doing it, but then again a sysop is someone who, by definition, is trusted to know when not to use tools of this nature. BD2412 T 22:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you that import feature is a feature we the project must have. It avoids many potential problem of GFDL compliance. The differences of accounts between two projects, thus misattribution may be problematic, which I thought someone (Jeff?) pointed out once, but in my opinion it is far better to have no or poor attribution on so-called transwiki with copy & paste, specially in case they are "transwikied" from the other project without any information of history. I don't claim every sysop should retain its access, but on the other hand find no reason to oppose to give it. And by definition, I rather support to give all sysops the access, so
  • Support see the argument above, we can just give a try, having Jusjih as temporary import access granted user. I said, temporary, since I rather propose the community again to activate the feature between several projects and allow every sysop to handle this feature. So consequently this request may be a transitional stage to the proposed change. As logs suggest, when we starts to import things, I suppose one user for this access is not enough. --Aphaia 01:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, in light of Jusjih's affirmative answer to my question above. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A trusted and surely competent editor.--Cato 20:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I don't have a problem with this requested access. Good luck with these tasks!! :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 23:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I trust this action for one of the best editors. Modernist 13:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I fully trust Jusjih. ~ UDScott 19:38, 8 February 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship/Archives/2007&oldid=2857615"