Wikiquote

Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Archives/2008

< 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 2008.

Requests and nominations for adminship 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: RFA declined. I have replaced Will's closure of this RFA because he is not an admin, and if we don't want non-admins closing VfDs, we certainly shouldn't be having non-admins closing rights discussions, and I don't want this precedent set, especially because of Will's involvement with Arbok in editing conflicts. Ordinarily, I'd prefer to recuse myself from closing this, as I registered the first and most detailed opposition. But I believe the community will agree with me (as they probably do/did/will with Will) that w:WP:SNOW applies in this case, especially after Arbok's activity since he filed his request. I believe one "job" of an admin is to take the heat for controversial decisions, since the community has explicitly confirmed its trust in their judgment, and they are subject to recall if they lose this trust. Both Arbok and Sceptre have stood for adminship. Although Arbok's case, unlike Sceptre's, was an egregious failure to meet any qualifications for adminship, I would ask that Sceptre also consider the deliberation several admins have tried to show here and in other discussions with Arbok, in preparation for any of his own future candadacies. Jeff Q (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbok (talk · contributions) edit

I would like to be an administrator. I'm here all day and can look after the site.

Thanks,
Amaury/Arbok. - Arbok 02:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. Although Arbok has made 1,000 edits (exactly) as of my writing this, these have all occurred within the past 18 days, and I am concerned that this editor has demonstrated little awareness of Wikiquote policies and practices outside a few very specific activities. For example, about half of these edits seem to be adding unsigned welcome messages for new users, even on at least two occasions ([1], [2]) replacing others' welcome posts. In Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Prospects Student's Book Advanced, Arbok inexplicably added a {{vfd}} tag to the discussion page, which Yehudi had to correct. Arbok also reverted a set of interwiki links added by Ranveig, posting a {{test3}} and {{test4}} on Ranveig's talk page, which the latter understandably removed and ignored. I myself just reverted an Arbok-posted {{test2a}} (removing content in a vandalistic fashion) from Sceptre's talk page, apparently inspired by Sceptre's removal of excessive quoting from Portal (game). This suggests a lack of awareness on Arbok's part of Wikiquote copyright problems, especially since the latest discussion on the article talk page is titled "Excessive quoting". (I must say, however, that my original thought that Sceptre had properly identified his edits as copyvio-reduction was inaccurate — his recent trimmings all seem to be popup reversions with no additional explanation, nor did he state his rationale on the article talk page — so this wasn't as obvious an error as I'd thought.) All of these problem edits I found simply by checking diffs from randomly chosen edits of different types, based on the page and the edit summary, which makes me think there may be more such problem edits. In short, I find Arbok's edits far too hasty and lacking in awareness of normal project work. I cannot support such an editor being given sysop capabilities. I would recommend substantial reading of policies and practices, and perhaps a bit more examination of basic wiki issues like interwiki links and copyright violations. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. As Jeff Q said, Arbok hasn't show any factual contributions which may prove his or her statement like "I can look for". --Aphaia 05:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. AGF, I believe that Arbok is an enthusiast who didn't always know what he/she was doing; many edits, particularly vandalism reverts, are quite helpful. If so, Arbok can become an admin one day, but not until we can be 100% sure that he/she won't do anything stupid. Kalki had to revert some incorrect page moves (such as The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (film)) where Arbok wrongly claimed that the official web site had a different title; admins must be trusted to fact-check correctly. Another good example just a few hours ago is the removal of a good faith VfD notice. [3] If this RfA fails, I hope that Arbok will learn from thee comments and become a better editor.--Poetlister 06:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't know I was that bad. - Arbok 06:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I am impressed by Arbok's enthusiasm at editing at such a rate (though as Jeff says this was largely achieved by welcome messages, often overwriting existing ones), I cannot see that he can be trusted with the tools at present. I am very disturbed by this edit on Wednesday 30 July [4] where he removes criticism and warning messages by Poetlister, Yehudi, Kalki and myself. If he behaves himself for a couple of weeks he could reasonably remove them then, but he should not have removed them so quickly. It suggests that he does not appreciate the gravity of what he has done. As Poetlister says, AGF it's just thet he doesn't know what he's doing. I would look for a substantial period of impeccable behaviour before I could trust him.--Cato 21:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cato, I didn't remove those because I was trying to deny them, I removed them because I was cleaning my talk page. - Arbok 22:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, you might have been blocked for that.--Poetlister 22:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm… I didn't even think to check Arbok's talk page, since I found sufficient evidence of opposing this nomination without it. It had occurred to me that rapid-fire hasty editing requiring little thought, like welcomes and page moves, are a common technique for disrupters who wish to establish some legitimacy on a project in a short time, but I chose to assume good faith (AGF), a practice which is being invoked uncomfortably often (like a talisman) in this discussion. But adding in the facts that (A) several different people warned Arbok about problems with these hasty edits; (B) the continuation of similar problems after those warnings; and (C) the removal of all warnings (rather than archiving a relatively short talk page) barely two days before requesting adminship with no apparent awareness of how these problems would make him a poor candidate; all suggest to me that I will not be able to support Arbok unless and until he establishes a reputation here — over many, many months — that overcomes 1,000 poorly considered edits, something I'm inclined to believe will not happen. As always, I'm willing to be proven wrong. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't think deleting warning messages is much of a knock. You get a warning, you read it, you've been warned. Why keep it around unless it says in the message that it is not to be deleted for some period of time? We are, after all, masters of our own little piece of user-real estate here. My opposition to adminship here is solely based on this editor's lack of time on the project. BD2412 T 01:37, 3 August 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.
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: RfA declined.. This has been open for a week. While only three comments have been made, they are all clear opposes, and I do not believe that leaving the RfA open for longer would change anything. I suggest that Red4tribe contacts an existing admin for a discussion before trying again. Red4tribe should also activate his e-mail.--Poetlister 20:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red4tribe (talk · contributions) edit

I nominated myself a while ago, I can't remember when. I did a lot of work on a few pages, notably George Washington, William the Silent and Henry Knox(still working on), and I would like to help clean up vandalisim. Red4tribe 17:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I don't want to put a damper on an enthusiastic contributor's efforts, but I don't really understand why you are so anxious to have sysop rights. In the 8-1/2 weeks you've been contributing, you've worked on less than a dozen articles and done only about 280 edits. You say that you want to clean up vandalism, but most anti-vandalism work can be done without sysop rights, and you don't seem to have tried to do any of this yet. You almost never communicate what your edits are about in edit summaries, which makes it harder for all editors to follow article development. And you apparently haven't read this entire page, which includes at the bottom links to "Past discussions", under which you will find your previous self-nomination on the page "/Archives/2008".
    I can't speak for anyone else of course, but when I consider an admin candidacy, I look for someone with at least six months' experience and/or 500 edits on a wide variety of articles, or similar wiki experience shown in other projects; significant involvement not just in quotes but in project maintenance; and a demonstrated understanding of Wikiquote policies and practices, including reading the policy and maintenance pages for information. I'm afraid that you seem to fall short in all these areas at present.
    Adminship is not intended as a badge of honor; it's a responsibility that includes privileges that allow editors to do certain tasks more effectively. I believe that one should demonstrate some effectiveness in those tasks before asking the community to give them more responsibility to do them. I would recommend that you examine the early edit histories of existing admins, and review the past discussions of admin nominations, to see what it is that Wikiquotians typically look for in a successful candidate. If you feel that these conditions match the kind of work you want to do here, I would recommend you engage in this kind of work before you request adminship again. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Your work so far has been quite helpful, but as Jeff says, you do still have some way to go. Never mind the bottom of the page; have you read the top? "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." Please ask yourself whether you meet these requirements.--Cato 22:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As the most recently appointed admin, maybe my experience could be helpful. I was surprised to be nominated and to be endorsed so enthusiastically. (If you can find your old RfA, mine is next to it.) But I had been editing for six months and my work had ranged far more widely than yours. Please look at my contributions and contact me if you'd like to discuss.--Yehudi 07:22, 20 July 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.
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: Sysop status refused. --Cato 21:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Red4tribe (talk · contributions) edit

I think I would be a good admin. I have brought William the Silent from nothing, to something in just two days. I will crack down on vadalisim. I thnk I could help a lot.Red4tribe 18:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok understood, but what spelling errors? Red4tribe 18:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
vadalisim --Poetlister 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And thnk --Aphaia 23:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think it goes without saying that an admin must have more experience on the site than two days. While the page you worked on looks fine to me, you must build up a history on the site before being considered to be an admin. The fact that there are a couple of spelling errors in your request also does not bolster your case. I would suggest that you keep working and learning how the site works before requesting such a position. ~ UDScott 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at present I really hate to dampen an enthusiast, and if Red4tribe can maintain enthusiasm for long enough I will be delighted to support an RfA.--Poetlister 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Red4tribe is making a very promising start. I think that he/she is likely to be admin material eventually, and would be happy to offer any advice I can to help achieve that. So please don't be disheartened by the opposes.--Cato 22:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: UDScott: is "spellling errors" deliberate? :-)
      • While we have no official equivalent of w:WP:SNOW, I propose to close this request with an apparent coming conclusion on my discretion as b'crat. If there is no opposition within a day, I'll take it a sign of community approval. --Aphaia 23:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This request was early closed in regard of its impossibility of success. The candidate is however appreciated due to his or her enthusiasm and the ENWQ community will welcome the second nomination in a more appropriate time. --Aphaia 05:50, 26 May 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.
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: Sysop status granted. --Aphaia 06:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Yehudi (talk · contributions) edit

I am delighted to be nominating Yehudi for administrator. He has been with us for six months, and has been an energetic contributor in every part of the site. He has started articles ranging from Hippopotamus to Andrei Gromyko, from Mud to Charles Perrault. Not only that, he has done category and stub fixing, vandal fighting, greeting new users and any amount of VfD contributions. He has even corrected some of my errors! I am certain that he will be a very useful addition to the admin corps.

He has accepted here and I have asked him to confirm on this page.--Cato 21:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am honoured by Cato's nomination and delighted to accept. I am very flattered by the supports already received.--Yehudi 11:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yehudi is now a sysop. --Aphaia 21:39, 22 April 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.
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: Ningauble is now an administrator. ~ Kalki 00:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ningauble (talk · contributions) edit

I would like to nominate User:Ningauble for consideration as an admin. This user has been quite active in patrolling for vandalism and cleanup and has been very busy in the roughly four months on WQ, and I believe would make a solid addition to the admin team. ~ UDScott 21:43, 4 November 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.
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: EVula is now an administrator here. ~ Kalki 21:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EVula (talk · contributions) edit

In the spirt of "the more administrators there are the better", I'd like to be considered for an admin spot. For those that don't know me, I'm a very active cross-wiki editor, and a bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia (a table of my 'cratship and adminship can be found at m:User:EVula#Mini-matrix, and I'm in the closing days of an RfA on the English Wikisource). What has pushed me to post this RfA was dealing with a vandal last night/early this morning, where I was the only one active to revert his edits (which I had to do manually; not even rollback), and his rather disgusting nonsense pages that I tagged for speedy deletion were still around for a while.

As far as my actual Wikiquote credentials go, I'm very active in interwiki work[5][6] (see my matrix for a list of all the Wikiquotes I've been around), and have cleaned up Jeff Dunham (before) and V for Vendetta (film) (before) to address copyright concerns. I also do my regular wikignoming now and then.[7][8][9]

And, in the interest of full-disclosure, I admit that I won't be someone of epic sysop status (I'm thinking along the lines of JeffQ), but I'm plenty experienced with the tools, can be trusted not to go crazy[ier], and feel I have demonstrated that I'd have a legit use for the tools. I'm always by my email and am often on IRC, so I can always be here if crap hits the fan and an extra pair of hands are needed. EVula // talk // 16:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than waste my (and everyone else's) time with thank you spam, I'd rather just thank everyone here. That gives me more time to administer the site; a win/win, to be sure. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:14, 14 November 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.
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.

Note: Moved to its own subpage [10]

FloNight (talk · contributions) edit

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls of all ages, I present to you FloNight. If you're confused about why I'd submit a sysop's name here on RfA, you're just as confused as I was when I realized that she wasn't one already. :)

FloNight casts a wide net here on Wikiquote, improving the site in many different ways: providing sound rationales in VfDs,[11] general cleanup,[12] finding sourced quotes[13], and salvaging articles that come up on VfD (see VfD/Bear Bryant and count how many times her efforts are cited as being the reason to keep the article). She's nominated a few dozen articles for VfD, and has helped to revert vandalism.

On top of this, she has ample experience with the tools; in addition to a sysop flag on the English Wikisource, she's an administrator, CheckUser, and oversighter on the English Wikipedia.

Though she's obviously dedicated to the site (she's got more edits now than I did when I ran a month ago), I think we should finish digging our hooks into her by appointing her as a sysop. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance: Thank you, EVula for the kind words. I accept the nomination. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FloNight is now an administrator. ~ Kalki 09:17, 20 December 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.

Requests for bureaucrat access 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: Access granted. --Aphaia 04:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Poetlister (talk · contributions) edit

I request Bureaucrat status here please. The activity on this site has been increasing steadily, and while the current bureaucrats are probably not being swamped, it seems that a third one may be desirable. I have been an editor here for a year and an admin for nearly all that time, and believe that I am fully qualified for the role.--Poetlister 16:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Regarding to the discussion on the talk, as a b'crat of this project, I hereby propose to keep this voting open at least until 17:00, 18 February. --Aphaia 19:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have been editing (mostly on Wikipedia these days) on Wikiquote for a reasonably long time and I know how diligent and how serious and how capable Poetlister is. She will do an excellent job as a bureaucrat, as she already is doing a great job as an excellent administrator. Her work is tops and she brings an expertise that is a valuable asset to the project. Modernist 13:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A diligent and painstaking admin who knows our rules and procedures inside out.--Cato 19:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, absolutely. BD2412 T 20:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reserved (and at this point I am inclined to oppose): Though I have much appreciation of the extensive work that Poetlister has done here, and have never felt that decisions made on other wikis should be absolutely binding on us, they should usually be taken into consideration. Even if there is much confusion about what has actually occurred in the past, there are too many unresolved issues involving activity on other WIkimedia wikis for me to currently support this nomination.
    There is no personal animosity in my lack of enthusiasm, but I also simply do not feel that there is currently any pressing need for more people who can assign others admin status, or rename them and grant them bot flags. These are currently rarely used but potentially dangerous tools, and should not be granted needlessly. I entirely welcome more admins and general editors to the project, and usually grant approved nominees admin status as soon as possible after the minimum 7 day nomination period.
    I am aware my objections might be unpopular in light of Poetlister's contributions to the project, but even if I am out-voted on this issue, I think this nomination should be considered for at least 2 weeks before any final decisions are made. ~ Kalki 00:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My hope is that this request will be looked at fairly in terms of what works best at Wikiquote. There is a strong feeling that what happened on Wikipedia should have no bearing here. The mitigating circumstance of Poetlister's excellent work here at Wikiquote underscores that. There is also a strong feeling that what happened at Wikipedia should not have happened at all, and is best left in the past. It seems apparent that serious mistakes were made by her accusers. Modernist 06:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Cato. Ripberger 07:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two bureaucrats is not very many for a wiki of this size, and a third one seems prudent. Kalki raises points that are worthy of some careful thought, although I'm not sure there is a strong need to extend the nomination process for two weeks. I no longer am convinced of the absolute truth of the allegations on en:wp. On the contrary, despite how adamantly some insist they are true, I have quite a bit more than a reasonable doubt that Poetlister is anyone's sock, and in due time I believe those allegations will be reconsidered. Wikis traditionally have a policy of not being completely bound by what happens at other wikis, a point raised when the allegations first surfaced, and one that has a lot of merit. Even back then, there was a strong sentiment here that Poetlister was an upstanding user, doing a fine job, and the risk of abuse was low to nonexistent. While I do have some serious concerns about how Poetlister (and other folk as well) handled the quotes associated with Chip Berlet, by and large that record of excellent work and contributions, of heeding community consensus and of careful consideration of the issues, has continued. I have had a chance to work with Poetlister directly and I find this user to be thoughful and considerate, qualities that a good 'crat needs. Therefore, after careful consideration, I Support Poetlister for bureaucrat. ++Lar: t/c 11:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No need for me to point out how dodgy the evidence is against Poetlister; Lar has done so, far more authoritatively. In any case, let's stick to what's happened here, where Poetlister has done very well. (On Chip Berlet, Kalki was 100% in agreement with her.) Nobody opposes Aphaia because of what happened on the Japanese Wikipedia. It is also worth noting the attitude of Fred Bauder, then a leading member of Wikipedia ArbCom. He promoted Taxwoman (blocked along with Poetlister) to admin on Wikinfo [14]. Either he (as a member of ArbCom) knew something that Kalki doesn't, or he rightly only looked at her activity on Wikinfo.--Yehudi 12:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As someone that has been active here and on Wikipedia-en, I want to weigh in about the issue raised as a concern. Having looked into the issues around Poetlister's ban on Wikipedi-en for several months, in this particular instance I do not think a ban on Wikipedia-en should stop her from getting access to 'crat tools here. I agree that there is a need for another 'crat on a wiki this size and Poetlister has volunteered for the job. I see no reason to think that she is not qualified for it. If Poetlister gets the extra tools, I encourage her to remember that this position will cause her to be under greater scrutiny and she needs to be prepared to handle the criticism from her actions here and elsewhere. Good luck! :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 12:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Lar, above. I'm more than aware of the circumstances behind the enwiki issues and also hold my doubts on the matter. Her work here has been excellent to-date (yes, I checked!) and issues on other wikis shouldn't really hold sway here - Alison ❤ 19:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (update: since this seems to be relevant, I'm also an admin and checkuser on the English Wikipedia, amongst other places. And yes, I've contributed to Wikipedia Review)[reply]
  • Reserved oppose - I'm fairly new here and have no idea about Poetlister's history over on WP so my reservation is not based on anything Poetlister has done there. Or here for that matter. However I am ambivalent about granting access to give other people access to anyone based on verbage that includes "probably" and "may be". Either the current bureaucrats are swamped or they are not. Either it would be a good idea to have another, or not. If they are swamped then, yes, privileges should be extended to someone. If it is felt that there should be a certain number of bureaucrats regardless of their individual workload then, yes, privileges should be extended. But I do not feel that either of those two apply at this time. If they did I would probably endorse Poetlister. -- Greyed 20:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt that Greyed appreciates Poetlister's politeness and diffidence in phrasing her request as she did. Also, he may not realise that Lar is a Wikimedia-wide steward who knows more than almost anyone here about how to run a medium-sized wiki and he says "Two bureaucrats is not very many for a wiki of this size, and a third one seems prudent." I'd call that a clear statement that another bureaucrat is a good idea.--Cato 20:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is better to stay in front of the issue by expanding access as a Project grows. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As for the Kalki's proposal, to extend this request for two weeks, I am not sure if we need it, unless the course of this discussion changes later and our opinions are divided. We have hold sort of a vacuum about the threshold where we agree something reaches a consensus, perhaps we would like to discuss later on that, after see this request concluded. --Aphaia 00:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to have 2 weeks for this discussion, too. Poetlister has been a great contributor to Wikiquote, so I'd be inclined to support her, but I wonder as Kalki does if there's a need for a 3rd 'crat right now. I'd also like to see what I can pry out of the Powers That Be about her Wikipedia situation, given that I'm now a checkuser entrusted to keep such data private. As long as no one here can positively confirm or refute the basis of her reputation there, it will cause worry here. I'd like to make an evidence-based assessment that, while I could not share the details here, would at least give me a chance to try to address this nagging concern for Wikiquote. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm on the Wikipedia-en Arbitration Committee and I have reviewed the evidence. (I didn't identify myself that way because I prefer not to highlight it on other project where I edit but instead blend in with the crowd as best I can.) I support Poetlister as a 'crat here based on her good work here AND the possibility that alternative explanations exist that may explain issues that resulted in her ban. Coincidently, yesterday I started a discussion with another arbitrator about formally reviewing her ban on Wikipedia-en. The other arbitrator is compiling the evidence to present to the rest of the Committee. It is likely going to take longer than 2 weeks for us to look at it. I don't think waiting for ArbCom's review is necessarily in the best interest of Wikiquote. My 2 cents. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Poetlister is blocked on the English WP; Aphaia is blocked on the Japanese WP. I do not recall Jeff raising concerns when Aphaia was standing for bureaucrat, or indeed for checkuser (a far more sensitive position). If Jeff were to ask Aphaia to stand down from her positions here, I would strongly oppose but at least I could respect his consistency. As for getting anything out of the Powers That Be, surely Jeff knows that Lar is a steward and FloNight is on the Arbitration Committee. Surely they already know at least as much as Jeff will be told. Frankly, I don't care about the position on either the English or the Japanese WPs; I am only concerned with what I have seen here, and on the basis of that I happily voted for Aphaia for steward (as did Poetlister), and I happily voted for Poetlister for admin and bureucrat.--Cato 21:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I usually have very little interest in following WIkipedia politics beyond the extent it might affect this project. Though in the end I did not find it necessary to openly state my views on the matter, I was opposed to some initial moves to block or perhaps de-admin Poetlister here when the controversies at Wikipedia resulted in banning there. I do not know all that occurred but saw no need for such actions here, or to rush to decisions on them, and typed up many paragraphs stating my reasons, which in the end I thought unnecessary to post because consensus had clearly begun to swing against such measures. But, I also don't see any need to rush decisions in the granting of bureaucrat status, and thought 2 weeks a reasonable amount of time for existing issues to be more fully explored.
I am not sure of the exact chronology of things but I don't believe Aphaia was banned on the Japanese Wikipedia (largely because of what seems to have been personality conflicts and a mistake in judgment) until long after her Bureaucrat status was granted here, and I don't believe it came up here during her nomination for either Bureaucrat or Checkuser. Poetlister was banned on Wikipedia because of accusations including the use of sockpuppets in voting, which I believe to be a matter of greater concern. Personally, I have no objections to multiple user accounts, but of course have much objection to their use for multiple votes on an issue, and in granting Bureaucrat status to anyone who remains banned on Wikipedia because of such accusations, even if in they end they do prove to be erroneous. I simply thought the issue did need to be addressed here. ~ Kalki 22:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Cato, I'm afraid that you've nailed me on a point I'm quite embarrassed about. I did indeed fail to comment during Aphaia's candidacy for steward. I never have apologized to her about that, and I do so now. I can only say that I was consistent in a way not readily apparent in these public forums. No matter how much I trust anyone in Wikimedia (and I've repeatedly said that I trust Aphaia implicitly and without reserve), I feel compelled to review evidence on any serious matter concerning them before I comment. (In fact, you can reliably tell how closely I've been monitoring someone's work here, usually for the sake of nominations, by how quickly I support or oppose candidacies on this page.) Unfortunately, I cannot read Japanese, and I don't like relying on secondhand accounts. (I often recommend that people don't rely solely on my summaries, either, but read the cited evidence as well.) Before I could resolve the conundrum surrounding our excellent and tireless Aphaia, she withdrew her candidacy. Poetlister was a different situation. I spent many hours poring over the public discussion and evidence, the result of which was that I felt I should support her here and try to see if we could get the WP situation reviewed. But even there, I have not been as diligent as I wished, due to my contracted time in Wikimedia of late. This is why I am trying to push the issue now. I must say that I am happy to see that many vocal editors here believe strongly in English Wikiquote's long-time practice of putting local contributions high above all other considerations. I ask the community to forgive my unexpected hesitations and delays in speaking up quickly in these situations, but I'm an incurable skeptic, and I don't even trust myself to remember all the relevant data without periodic review. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reserved now (inclining to support). English WikiquoteWikipedia(sorry, typo) thing doesn't matter me. Poetlister has been a good editor example, with her hard working and impartial handling of her tools. I haven't given a chance to look to the evidence which made Enwiki Arbcom members doubt sockpuppetry and reach the conclusion of banning those accounts, so my respect for them (I know some of them personally and enjoy collaborating them, being impressed their hard work and good discretion), and I know cases appear differently without some crutial data through my experiences of handling confidential matters, so I don't want to give my opinion on that allegation at this point. However it wouldn't be an excess I am happy to know they are going to review the case. I hope bot them and our beloved Poetlister the best for the best interest of Wikimedia project.
    In other words: I haven't been troubled with that allegation. I think I was one of sysops who opposed strongly to block her here on Wikiquote, solely due to her English Wikipedia ban. And I think we haven't seen any sockpuppetry on Wikiquote which we doubt her involvement. For me, that is all: it had never influenced me on her evaluation. I hope she knows my respect and friendship toward her.
    But, saddened to say, I have another concern. Her involvement into Wikipedia Review. I guess the best outcome between Poetlister and me would be "agreeing to disagree". I don't deny the productive external discussion place, but my observation to another external forum, w:2channel may bias my thought on that, that is, not every such forum is productive and beneficial. And I am not so much impressed by WR, I need to say. I am not sure if it is good for Wikimedia Community at large to have sysops who serve also Wikipedia Review deeply to some extent. This concern hinders me to express any strong opinion on this request right now. --Aphaia 06:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment & reserved for now (with no indication of any likely direction of vote). This interests me. If the community (which contains a lot of people I like & respect) are happy I would request that this remain open a little longer than conventionally too. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't understand the point about Wikipedia Review. I am a contributor there, as are several other editors here. It is not Wikiquote Review; I can recall no more than a passing reference there to any of our editors other than those who are themselves contributors. We are not Wikipedia, any more than we are Google; would we criticise someone here for involvement in a site that reviewed Google? Nor is Wikipedia Review a "bad site"; many Wikipedia admins post there, and indeed Uninvited Company made a point of going there to invite its members to contribute to Wikback.

    Anyway, Poetlister has posted nothing there that would cast doubt on her ability to be a bureaucrat here. On the contrary, I admire the way that she has moderated difficult situations there, skills useful in a bureaucrat. (She also has the power there to rename users and promote to moderator, also of course very relevant experience.) Is it Aphaia's contention that because Poetlister is a moderator, she is personally responsible for everything on Wikipedia Review? Does Aphaia accept personal responsibility for everything here on WQ, including personal attacks on Poetlister?

    As to the comparison between Poetlister and Aphaia, I understand that when Poetlister, an admin, was blocked on (English) Wikipedia, she was temporarily blocked and desysopped here and there was a big fuss. When Aphaia, a bureaucrat, was blocked on (Japanese) Wikipedia, nobody cared. Yet nobody denies the reasons for Aphaia's block, although it may have been excessive. In Poetlister's case we have admins, checkusers, stewards and ArbCom members calling for a review of the block. No, they are not comparable!--Yehudi 12:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Approval of Poetlister because of the good work she has done here. - InvisibleSun 14:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I never really had any reservations about Poetlister (who has always done great work here) - I just wanted to wait for the end of the side discussions and any research. Unless something else turns up, I believe that discussion period has nearly passed and my support has not wavered (please don't think my hesitation to be anything but not wanting to rush when there is some contention). ~ UDScott 18:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - she's a good person. Will {talk) 01:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I see this nomination in two parts: do we need another bureaucrat, and should Poetlister be that person?
    New bureaucrat? I routinely support new admins because there is admin-entrusted work (like faster vandalism reversion, deletion, deleted-page examination, VfD closure, etc.) that occasionally seems to need a boost from new blood. I am not aware that we have a similar need for more bureaucrats, and neither the community nor the current b'crats had expressed a need for more (until now perhaps). On the other hand, having only two of anything can be a bottleneck. People often step away for a while, and if one does while the other is busy, it can cause delays. A third b'crat is not a bad idea, but it's not as compelling as another admin.
    Poetlister as bureaucrat? I value Poetlister's work here; even our disagreements are quite engaging and useful. I would expect her to continue this trend as a bureaucrat. But the cloud hanging over her from WP interferes with that expectation. I've been receiving information from many sources in the past week or so, and I'm still plowing through it all in my ponderous manner. So far, that information is maddeningly split between highly suspicious correlations and plausible explanations (some of which I've had to deduce myself, as both sides are frequently selective in how they present the information, and much of the "evidence" is nothing but unverifiable testimony). There may be a smoking gun or an airtight defense in there that I haven't gotten to yet, but until I finish my own study, I don't want to support or reject Poetlister for a role I don't see as urgently needed. On the other hand, if I felt we were about to make a big mistake with the obvious trend toward approving Poetlister, I'd say so.
    I apologize sincerely to Poetlister for this damnably faint praise (idiom paraphrase intentionally directed at me). I'd had some silly notion that I could evaluate this complex situation fast enough to say something concrete before we finished here. I will continue to try to get to the bottom of her WP situation, but meanwhile I'll be delighted if her bureaucrat work makes my circumspection look foolish. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain: Though I saw no pressing need for another bureaucrat at this time, and still believe it was entirely appropriate for standing issues at Wikipedia (which appear to have no likelihood of any easy or definite clarification) to be brought up and discussed here, as there remains a nearly unanimous support for the the nomination, and some degree of assurance of confidence provided by a steward, I will not persist in any inclination to oppose the nomination. Constraining my assessments to what is clearly evident of the excellent work done here, I accept and accede to the general consensus, and will welcome Poetlister as a fellow bureaucrat. ~ Kalki 14:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poetlister is now a bureaucrat. ~ Kalki 18:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**** Wow! Thanks!! ****--Poetlister 23:17, 18 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.
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.

UDScott edit

UDScott (talk · contributions) is nominated for bureaucratship. UDScott has been a solid contributor for over three years, and an administrator since November of 2005. Anyone who has worked for any length of time on this project has surely come across his contributions, and his facility with the administrative tools. BD2412 T 17:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance: I accept the nomination. ~ UDScott 00:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UDScott is now a bureaucrat. Congrats. --Aphaia 06:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me as well, and apologies — I would have supported this earlier, but I didn't notice the nomination until after the promotion, even though I had noticed Invisible Sun's earlier when the request sub-page was edited. ~ Kalki 11:18, 5 October 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.
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.

InvisibleSun edit

I nominate InvisibleSun (talk · contributions) for bureaucratship. InvisibleSun has been working hard on this project for almost exactly three years, and has been an administrator since May of 2006. If you have been to the Village Pump lately, you can see the enormous thought and effort he has been putting into reforming our criteria for inclusion to counter assertions of copyright problems. BD2412 T 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance: I accept the nomination. - InvisibleSun 17:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]



InvisibleSun is now a bureaucrat. Congrats. --Aphaia 06:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me as well. I had been figuring the two week wait was about over, but Aphaia took care of your promotion before I got around to it. ~ Kalki 11:25, 5 October 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.

Requests for checkuser 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: Successful application.--Poetlister 23:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jusjih (talk · contributions) edit

I am delighted to nominate Jusjih as Checkuser. We very much need another one, and it would be hard to find a better candidate. Jusjih is an admin here (the only one with import rights), an admin and bureaucrat on several other projects, and a steward. He will be a great asset to the project.--Cato 21:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the nomination. While administering 11 Wikimedia sites, I am very busy and cannot come to all of them daily, but I come to them at least weekly. I am most active on Chinese Wikisource. However, as I accept email and I check my in-box daily, emailing me is the fastest way to catch my attention wherever you are emailing from, in case a site that I administer needs quick action. Thanks to Cato for the nomination.--Jusjih 00:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC) (with adminship on Meta, Commons, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikisource as well)[reply]
  1. Support as nominator.--Cato 21:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Obviously well qualified.--Yehudi 07:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support ~ Kalki 08:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. - InvisibleSun 16:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Will {talk) 18:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support. Right on, nom. BD2412 T 20:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I don't see why not Red4tribe 22:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. --Aphaia 07:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. ~ UDScott 12:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A fine admin, here and on Wikisource.--Poetlister 11:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. He's already been of great help to us as an admin. But I would also like to encourage the community to consider selecting one additional checkuser as well, preferably one whose work is not spread out over many projects. I expect Aphaia to continue to serve us well in this capacity, and Jusjih to contribute significantly, but Cato is currently doing the lion's share of the work, followed by me as an increasingly distant second. I plan to resign my checkuser status as soon as a new CU is ratified, so I'd like to get the ball rolling for another CU, one who can commit to a major focus on English Wikiquote. (I have personally found that diligent and accurate CU work can be compromised when spreading oneself too thinly.) This would bring us up to 2 front-line CUs and 2 less-directly active CUs, which strikes me as a good balance for the current state and requirements of our project. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support --Maxim(talk) 13:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Based on the said need, and that this user is on Wikisource, support for now. Emesee 09:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With 3 Checkusers already and just over 15,000 pages, is it necessary to have a 4th CU ?...--Cometstyles 04:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Page count is irrelevant. What matters is how much work there is to do, and how much time the CUs have to do it. We currently have 1 very active CU and 2 less active ones (Aphaia because she wears many hats, and I because I'm preoccupied with real-world matters). Wikis are the work of the willing and able, and it's far too common for smaller communities to have only a handful of people willing and able to tackle this sensitive and challenging work with the approval of the community. When too few people carry that load, they can burn out easily. As I said above, I plan to resign as soon as we have a new CU, so we won't be adding any. If we don't get one soon, I may resign anyhow due to circumstances, and we'll be down to 1 active and 1 semi-active, which I can assure you is not adequate for the demands of this project. (I'd prefer not to be more specific about this in public, as these discussions tend to feed vandals who look for vulnerable wikis from which to launch cross-project vandalism.) This is why, in my experience, I recommended above that we have 2 active CUs and 2 less-active ones to back them up and provide their significant cross-project experience to aid in sensitive CU matters. Moving forward on this cannot be done too soon. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, I would like to say that with email accepted, whenever I am needed to check users, I will respond to emails as soon as I can even if I am more active elsewhere. Without at least 12 more supports, I cannot generally check here, except in emergencies or for multi-project CheckUser checks as in the case of cross-wiki vandalism, per m:CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser. For those who have supported me, thanks, while I am not withdrawing this nomination, but let us wait for a while.--Jusjih 02:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, it is always good to have extra hands on deck, and additional people to discuss CU results with in order to ensure the best outcome. Jusjih is a good candidate to take on this task here at enwq. Jayvdb 04:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Has my confidence also. I've been away in RL and working on Wikipedia and I am a little late but better late then never - Modernist 04:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Sure. Cbrown1023 talk 16:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, good luck. Giggy 02:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Looks ok to me! Ripberger 02:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I absolutely agree with Jeffq on his thinking about need and focus. My edit count here is low but I have worked with Jusjih, a fellow steward on other projects and vouch for his abilities, trustworthiness, and dedication to the projects. It would be a shame to see this fail for lack of supports, so perhaps folk ought to scour a bit for more supports. ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Candidate's past work solid. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων 03:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support This must be important if there's a site notice so I'll agree with everyone.--Crum375 09:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Me, too! - Arbok 16:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - well trusted. --Herby talk thyme 11:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - of course :) - Alison ❤ 17:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Jusjih is well trusted on other projects and is more than able to fulfill this function. Bastique 18:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure whether to recognise this vote. Bastique is a steward, but he has only ever made 19 edits on WQ, the last in May 2007.--Poetlister 20:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, we've recognized votes from any English Wikiquote registered user who has made at least a few meaningful contributions to Wikiquote, does not appear to have done so solely to make their presence known for a vote, and has not violated any other policies or caused disruptions. I believe Bastique qualifies by this practice. His edits to several articles (adding/editing quotes and updating Commons material) and his anti-vandalism moves are more than some occasional users have done and rather more diverse than many newbies who we'd happily count. For CU votes specifically, we've had some votes for all current CUs (myself included) that, in my humble opinion, test the idea of "meaningful contributions". For that reason, it would be unfair to Jusjih not to count this vote. But the community might want to take up the question of just how much one must have contributed before votes on such a sensitive subject are counted. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This vote is visible for all visitors thanks to sitenotice; whoever visit the site may not fail to recognize it. I've talked to Bastique sometimes about ENWQ, so I'm rather pleased he looks for this project too (we are around same IRC channels, so there are many chances for me to talk with him). And Cato and I sometimes input our own vandal report to share with other CUs. Any CUs may have reasons to give a look. In addition, I've very recently communicated with him about the project, so it's not strange for him to visit the site, and join the vote, specially if he really agrees on necessity of granting the right. --Aphaia 05:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, we have 25 votes and I am content that they are all valid. We've had well over two weeks. As nominator, I will not close this, so can someone else, please?--Cato 21:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closed; community approved unanimously.--Poetlister 23:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your supports. I have reported this to m:Steward_requests/Permissions. Whenever you need me, emailing is the fastest way.--Jusjih 01:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck Jusjih, I'm sure your new role will be a great help to the team here. Completed per request at Meta. ++Lar: t/c 01:48, 3 August 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.
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: Checkuser status granted. --Poetlister 20:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Cato (talk · contributions) edit

I am responding to JeffQ's plea here for more people to stand for Checkuser. I am comfortably older than any possible age limit requirement :-(. I have been an admin here for over six months [15] and hope that the community can have confidence in me. I have experience of being a Checkuser on a private Wiki.--Cato 20:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support. Cato has been an extensive and responsible contributor and admin, and I know of no reason to object to his nomination for this position, if he is willing to take it on. This position can involve far more responsibility than mere adminship, and though JeffQ deserves whatever break he wishes to take from the task, I would hope he would also stick around. I can fully sympathize with his desire to retire though, as I myself have declined invitations for the position, and probably always will. Even with the responsibilities I already have, I often fall behind on many basic editing tasks I would like to take care of. ~ Kalki 22:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Cato has been a reliable administrator. I feel confident that he can be entrusted with this position. - InvisibleSun 01:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Conscientious and meticulous.--Poetlister 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, I agree with what the others have written - Cato has certainly shown the necessary responsibility to assume this role as well. ~ UDScott 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I have always found Cato a good admin and very helpful.--Yehudi 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I totally support Cato for this role. I think he has contributed a lot to Wikiquote, both as admin and editor, and I expect he will handle the responsibilities of Checkuser with his usual sense of dedication and cooperation. --Ubiquity 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, longstanding good admin. BD2412 T 23:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support , outstanding contributor and responsible, capable of handling a position of trust. Modernist 02:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Since his or her promotion, Cato has shown good judgment and performance as a sysop. I haven't recalled any controversial sysop action from Cato. And as Jeff Q said, I think the current CU team have a pressured need for more hands. If we can work together in this sphere too, it will benefit both the project and the current two active CUs. --Aphaia 09:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Once again I apologize for my glacial pace at responding, this time to my own request for CheckUser help. (I'd warned Cato in our offline discussion a while back about this, but I'm afraid I've been even slower than I'd anticipated.) Cato's tireless work here as a user and admin has been exemplary, and his interactions with users, both new and old, have demonstrated both conscientious attempts to improve the project and the willingness to admit and correct mistakes that I believe is essential to the tricky work of checkusering (checkusery?). His efforts to assume good faith in the face of editing that some of us oldtimers would block without hesitation are the kind of caution and patience that I like to see in a CU. His support of BD2412's motion to unblock Zarbon helped convince me to review Zarbon's situation and eventually reverse my earlier block. I feel confident that he will make an excellent and prudent checkuser, and I urge the community to support his nomination so that we can more readily fix the growing problems that only a CU can detect and confirm. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Inesculent 04:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. --McNoddy 11:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support checkusery tool for a helpful editor. --Bradeos Graphon 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per the above Ripberger 21:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support The project has a definite need for more CUs, and Cato's track record shows that he'd be a good candidate for the position. EVula // talk // 14:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per all previous comments.--JayJasper 17:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Cato and I have had our differences, he chose not to support me for steward, but I do think he works hard, has the trust of the community, and can be trusted by fellow CUs and others to execute the tasks with discretion and politeness. As pointed out, having a third CU is a good idea, as a wiki must have at least two at all times, or none. Therefore I support his candidacy. ++Lar: t/c 03:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope Lar and I have made up since the steward election.--Cato 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - seems to be active, committed, cognisant of due process, and well liked. Webaware talk 13:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Will {talk) 18:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per other comments. I have seen nothing but good come from Cato. -- Greyed 19:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support If Cato takes up this job the project can only benefit. -- Antiquary 19:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Good user, no evidence of problems in his contribution history. --Whiteknight 23:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support--Jusjih 00:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - I was initially reluctant since to vote at all since I've had no direct interaction with this user, but from reviewing some contributions and logs, as well as the esteem of other users I trust, I'm confident Cato will make a good checkuser. I'm particularly impressed with the stipulation on the call for checkuser candidates that technical ability/knowledge was mentioned (as it should be), and I believe Cato meets that requirement as well. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - as BD2412 had stated earlier, and I am saying now, I fully agree about Cato as he has shown support in the past and has very admirable admin qualities. - Zarbon 23:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closed; community approved. Notification posted at m:Requests for permissions#Cato@en wikiquote per m:CheckUser policy#Access to CheckUser. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:01, 21 March 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.

Requests for access removal (self) 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: Removed by Drini (log)--Aphaia 04:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Jeffq (talk · contributions) as checkuser edit

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I will be resigning my checkuser status, pending the completion of one last CU matter, but effective no later than 0:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC) regardless of that matter's outcome. I feel I can no longer devote the time I feel compelled to allocate to this critical responsibility while I hold it, and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.

Since there's really not a process for voluntary resignation (other than to request a rights change at m:Steward requests/Permissions, which I'll do immediately following the earlier of the two above events), this is just a notification of intent for my fellow Wikiquotians. But I would again encourage the WQ community to nominate one more candidate for CU to bring us up to four again after my departure. I truly believe that we will need one more active CU, focused especially on English Wikiquote matters, in addition to CUs Aphaia, Cato, and Jusjih. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see you go, I've enjoyed working with you on cross wiki matters. Best. ++Lar: t/c 21:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me too; I'll miss you and your lengthy but well-described writing! You've been always a nice colleague. I'm honored to work with you. Hopefully we will be able to work on home affair still for long. Best, --Aphaia 17:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, yes, I always value your interactions with me.--Poetlister 19:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your kind words. I enjoyed being able to help Wikiquote, Wikiquotians, and Wikimedians in general on this, and regret having to stop this work in order to focus on real-world matters. drini has now de-checkuser'd me at my request, but I'll continue to help as an editor and sysop where and when I can. I hope that I will eventually be able to resume more substantive work somewhere down the road. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:04, 28 August 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.

Votes of confidence 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: Request for removal of all rights. For the subsequence, see #Discussion.--Aphaia 05:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Cato, Poetlister and Yehudi edit


Precedent discussion found at WQ:VP#Vote for confidence (*blush*).

Discussion edit

I hope Poetlister publicly admits to every his sockpuppet and give an explanation why he did it. As an individual I personally wish him to apology those whom he has deceived, specially to the people whose photos were misused for his disguise and/or whose names were misattributed to his socks (since they would not be Wikimedians, it would be vain to do here: I wish him to contact them each personally and apologize. It is no wiki matter at all, but rather a matter of humanity). That said, I personally feel very sorry to Ms. Giselle H. whose name was misused for User:Poetlister's disguise. I feel very sorry to the woman of the photo which User:Poetlister was wrongly attributed to him. She might not know her photo was used in that way without her permission. Or not. I don't know but supposedly she has not known. There might be other victims. They deserve apology and we at Wikiquote deserve explanation at least I think: these accounts have been clearly abused, e.g. for vote stacking.

Without his explanation and complete disclosure of his socks, my trust once put in him won't be secured and reinstalled. --Aphaia 05:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a member of the Wikiquote community, but I hope it would not be thought too forward if I drew attention to this post on Wikisource where Cato admits to a number of sockpuppet accounts across WMF projects, including Quillercouch/Poetlister and Yehudi. WJBscribe (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well per WJBscribe, the user has confirmed that he was the sockmaster of those socks. Don't know why he didn't make that comment on ENWQ, because this is the wiki that probably feels deceived by him the most, so it would be great if Cato made a comment here...--Cometstyles 01:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the list on WS, I commented there. The modified copy is found on this page too. --Aphaia 22:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those of you who have been around here a while will know me. Sadly I am not active here at present however I do have an interest in this matter.

When Poetlister was first blocked on en wp I felt an injustice might have occurred and I exchanged some mails with the user. The more mails that were exchanged the less I felt I was dealing with the persona displayed on wiki, Last Autumn Poetlister emailed me to say they were thinking of standing as a 'crat here to enhance their position with regard to the en wp block. I stated it was a bad idea in my view & ceased mails. When the RfB came up I did not vote as this community seemed content.

I then had a mail from Poetlister asking me to support Cato's RfCU. I declined in strong terms however I found by then that Cato had over 20 votes & again the community seemed content. I felt that Cato & Poetlister were either acting together or were the same person.

I have examined almost all the edits by those I felt were involved since on Commons & Meta. Interchanges with Cato on there left me feeling that Cato was either in collusion with Yehudi or was Yehudi. I think this will explain my comments below. As someone who has dealt with puppets on a number of wikis for some time now I also believe that at least two of the accounts should be indefinitely blocked. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question is what happens now? All three false identities should be blocked and prevented from having special privelege and abilities obviously; however can this person be an editor again or should this person - poetperson, giselle impersonator, good worker, be permanently banned or be allowed to continue with another name, to edit with provisos or some kind of probation?... Seems like we should also weigh in on this issue...Modernist 13:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that all accounts should be immediately blocked indefinately (meaning for no set time) and all special access right removed as soon as possible. Then WQ can have a discussion about whether this person can return as an editor. I strongly urge if he is allowed to return, that WQ editors support the idea that he should be required to maintain one persona across all wikis. I think that at a minimum a ban of 90 days for this user on WQ is appropriate so that WQ can move forward in recruiting new people into positions of trust. This time without having to deal with the daily fallout that will happen if PL/Cato is continuing to edit is needed, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FloNight's comments, but that I think the all accounts should definitely remain blocked, including the one that impersonated a Wikipedia admin, which Poetlister himself unblocked and agreed with himself that he was right to unblock. If it was just a bit of sockpuppetry to get his own way in a content dispute, we could forgive him and move on. But this is something sinister. This guy stole the identities of several women and uploaded their photos without their consent (as well as linking one of the identities to a public interest in BDSM topics). He grossly violated the trust of the community. He set up a sock to annoy and impersonate someone from Wikipedia, then unblocked the sock, used some other socks to support his decision and publicly chastised the admin who had originally blocked. He almost certainly used the trust he undeservedly gained on Wikiquote as a means of regaining respectability on Wikipedia. Guys, this is creepy! If he's sincerely sorry - and we have no evidence that he is - he will accept being told to stay away as a consequence of the harm he has done to real people. If he's not sincerely sorry, we don't want him near us. It seems he was caught and blocked on Wikipedia before, and then given another chance so I'd be VERY wary about accepting his good faith now. I know he can create new sockpuppets if these accounts are blocked, but at least that won't be our fault. We'd be sending a terrible message to the young women whose identities he stole right here at these sites, if we accept him back on the grounds that he made some improvements to the site, or whatever. There are others who can make improvements to the site without us needing to accept liars and identity thieves. Desysop and block all accounts. Stratford490 18:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to remind you that I and other CUs are still on cross-wiki investigation. Can we now focus on the matter how the bits should be treated, and not these accounts yet, and rather focus on which kind of the information we need to have before decision-making? I personally think two kinds of information we need here on Wikiquote: a complete list of his accounts and the explanation of the reason he created those accounts specially on this project. --Aphaia 23:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there voting on each account? Why not just vote on the puppetmaster himself? rootology (T) 13:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For better readeability: in this way there would be only 4 cases theoretically (yes/no^2) and easily to sum up each opinions. Also until some moments before the vote started, the person in question hadn't clearly admitted his sockpuppetry. --Aphaia 15:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think until the full impact of the investigation started to sink in, there was a small chance that the community would have allowed at least one of the accounts to remain active. As it seems now all accounts are likely to be blocked indefinitely across all of the Wikimedia projects (at least I hope so) and the puppetmaster banned. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων 20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not true: on several projects he is still allowed to edit, see the links.
I think mainly the purpose is that giving him a chance to disclose what he has made where he was active, and on the other wikis I suppose they haven't even heard about him. Blocking indefinitely across all the project is a big deal nowadays. --Aphaia 20:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so, my comment was conjecture. If what Stratford490 has said is true, and given the degree to which the puppetmaster has compromised the integrity of the WQ project, he should be banned here, at English WP and all of his known manifestations blocked indefinitely at both projects. Eventually, IMO I can see some good coming from this. New editors for WQ, and a tightening of requirements for inclusion to help keep the cruft and copyvios to a minimum as side effects. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων 20:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the account list on Wikisource [16] , after his correction, I urged him to review and verify it again two days ago: no update has come. I think at least one account which was created this month is still missing. It is not SULed, registered on 15:28, 05 September 2008 to WQ and found here alone. Although it was already blocked when he posted that list (while I noted as "harassment?", but it could be hardly by someone else: the IP address in question was used only by Poetlister and Cato) and he just said he posted "crosswiki" and "enwiki without SUL" accounts so logically he may argue he made no false statement, but I think it as omission and hence I think we should not take this omission light: he was give the chance to correct but didn't.

As Jayvdb said on WS, "A deep and meaningful explanation of the motives for doing it over on Wikiquote" is important and I would like the Poetlister operator is aware that is mainly the reason his known account is still allowed to edit this wiki still now. --Aphaia 22:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding some votes below, but I should make clear I'm not a regular here. That said, I would like to think my opinion carries more weight than zero - but that is for the community to decide. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. I welcome all opinions but it doesn't mean all will be done as said. Specially if opinions are different sharply between regulars and not, I think it fair the voices of the former more weighed, since they will be most affected by the person in question in their future activities on this project. --Aphaia 11:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we end this now? It's obviously a snowball case with respect to the votes going any direction other than that unanimously expressed by virtually the entire regular Wikiquote community (and several visitors from other projects). I see no point in continuing to hold it open any longer. BD2412 T 02:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think the point of this vote is clear and the decision is obvious...and the time has come to reform wikiquote's administration and move forward.....Modernist 04:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now indecisive: I've been tempted to apply here the snowball clause for this case, since while there is no clear consensus how those accounts are treated (either block all or all but one) it looks obvious stripping the rights are unanimously supported. On the other hand I am not sure if it is a good precedence to close votes of confidence earlier.
That is, so wrap-ups: as of yet the community, virtually the entire regulars and some visitors, supports for stripping their restricted accesses unanimously.
No support to leave all accounts unblocked: socks are therefore to be blocked.
On the other hand there is no clear consensus either the editor may retain one account and only to edit as a normal editor or all his accounts as detected are blocked. Roughly 50:50 and I personally presume he would not be banned permanently due to lack of consensus, like kept articles with no consensus for deletion.
There are however opinions to block their all accounts at once, first sort out things and later allow him to be back. In this sense, around 3/4 voters support for blocking all accounts at this moment.
So my tentative summary says
The above is just my personal opinion for a food of thought, not a conclusion of a bureaucrat. --Aphaia 08:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aphaia it looks right to me. It's not a happy occasion, but they should all be stripped and blocked per the community vote below..let time pass - and then maybe one account can be considered. Modernist 11:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, those are the points on which the community is in agreement. BD2412 T 15:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that is an accurate reading of the community discussion. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I concludes this discussion and votes as the community decides as following:

It is an unhappy occasion, as Modernist says, and as pointed out we haven't reached full consensus in every detail. But we reached full consensus in two major points and the last one could be examined, whenever necessary. I hope we make a right decision here on a community basis.

Also I would thank all the people who've helped sort it out: FUD which the person in question has scattered couldn't be detected in cooperation of other wiki people, specially FT2 at EN WP, John Vandenberg at EN WS, and as usual, Lar and Herby. Also Cary who is in loop and exchange us opinions and information.

I hope this decision is an impetus to move the community forward to a better direction.

--Aphaia 05:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for Poetlister2 (talk · contributions) s:user:Quillercouch (aka Poetlister there too) confirmed this account as his own, and he mailed me. On his behalf I posted his explanation on that account:

This was a legitimate mistake. As you know, I changed my name from Poetlister to Quillercouch. Not thinking about SUL, I then tried to re-create "Poetlister" to avoid impersonation. I couldn't of course, so I created Poetlister2 and tried to re-name it to Poetlister. I was very upset and confused, not knowing what I was doing. I apologise.

--Aphaia 16:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Cato edit

Votes starts on 2008-09-15

  • No Confidence...and no support..Modernist 03:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unfortunate, but discovery of deliberate misrepresentation and manipulation of consensus should invalidate any user from contributing. No confidence. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων 04:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC) By which I mean remove all privileges and indefblock all known accounts. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων 02:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Confidence - all rights to be removed or remain removed. --Herby talk thyme 11:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Herby, no confidence in this account. I acknowledge that the account mostly acted in good faith, and did not violate checkuser-l confidences, to the best of my knowledge, but nevertheless, only one account should hold rights per actual user, and the user needs to hold the faith and trust of the community. That is in my view not the case at this time. Consider this as input from an outsider, I suppose, but hopefully it is helpful. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence; rights should subsist in only one account. BD2412 T 15:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence, all special accesses removed or remain removed (in case of CU). Account blocked indefinately until issues related to this user are sorted out. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strip this account of every privilege possible. EVula // talk // 16:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence. Remove all privileges and block indefinitely. See my comments above. Stratford490 18:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence. Remove all privileges and block. ~ UDScott 18:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence. All privileges to be permanently removed. All but one account to be permanently blocked. The remaining account to be blocked for 90 days. - InvisibleSun 18:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence, remove all rights. User can select one account that they wish to be left unblocked (all others blocked). Cbrown1023 talk 00:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strip all. Will (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strip all, block. Why is there separate voting since they're all proven and admitted to be the same person? rootology (T) 13:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: as said "On votes, everyone is welcome to comment but only established editors' votes and opinions are weighed". Rootology, your comment and opinion are welcome but your vote might not be considered when b'crats summarize this ongoing vote since you have almost no edit history on this project and haven't get involved. Thank you for your understanding. --Aphaia 15:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence. Remove all privileges and block. --Antiquary 20:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Confidence - all rights to be removed and Cato blocked indef....--Cometstyles 22:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove all rights forever. Block all accounts but one and ensure this person is restricted to one and only one account which is used on all wikis. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence, strip all restricted rights. Block all accounts but one permanently. All account blocked indefinitely until issues related to this user are sorted out, while it is expected to take 30-90 days hopefully. The user may choose the account he wish to remain. --Aphaia 07:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence; strip all privileges and block all usernames except one chosen by their operator. I am currently not able to give this situation the thorough review that I normally feel obligated to do. But I have already come to the conclusion that, because of increasingly widespread abuses of anonymity and the challenges in conclusively identifying some sophisticated sockpuppetry, we should implement a policy of more carefully screening any usernames with elevated privileges. I'd suggest that any username requesting privileges should accept a checkuser against their account to attempt to identify unconfirmed sockpuppets. I'd also say that any users who have or intend to gain privileges should accept that they may operate only a single username at any time on a project for which they hold those privileges, except for fully-disclosed bot accounts used only for described purposes. This is largely already our guideline on en:WQ, but it has been rather signficantly ignored or rejected by a number of people, some of them well-established good-faith editors.
    I am normally a fan of total anonymity when it is used solely for good-faith editing, but with all the cross-project mayhem that's been going on, I don't believe it's reasonable to ask the handful of editors who can police this to spend so much of their editing time researching and stopping abuses. I believe that it's quite reasonable to expect that when one accepts the responsibility of elevated privileges on a project, they put aside some of the advantages of innocent sockpuppetry (which is controversial anyway, but doesn't get stopped until it makes itself known) in order that the community may fully trust them with these privileges.
    Also, given the scope of this situation, we should probably review existing privileged users. We may lose our local CU capability for a time because of this, given that we've unwisely tended to close our votes at exactly 25 (something I recall objecting to at the time of my own candidacy), which technically means we have no minimum consensus for any votes that include two or more identified sockpuppets. But I think we may need to rebuild trust within this community. I, for one, am fully prepared to have a CU done against my accounts (my main one, my [currently inactive] bot account, my long-inactive Jeffq QotD, and my few impersonation-protection names, together with any IPs they may reveal) to re-confirm for the community that I have fully disclosed all my activities and am abiding by our official recommendation against sockpuppetry. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed The community decides that all privileges are stripped. For other points, see #Discussion on the above. --Aphaia 05:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Quillercouch (former Poetlister) edit

Votes starts on 2008-09-15

Vote closed The community decides that all privileges are stripped. For other points, see #Discussion on the above. --Aphaia 05:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Yehudi edit

Votes starts on 2008-09-15

Vote closed The community decides that all privileges are stripped. For other points, see #Discussion on the above. --Aphaia 05:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deflagged by steward m:user:Darkoneko ([17])--Aphaia 07:48, 22 September 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.

Declined nomination edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Declined. Speedy close for jokey nomination. - InvisibleSun 23:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

supersaiyan474 edit

This user should become an adminstrator his contributions arent that much but they're very nice.Dragonfable4ever 11:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah! I shold become an admin. thanx Supersaiyan474 11:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This user should be blocked for falsely putting a "15,000+ edits" tag on his page (he has fewer than 50), and for stealing my .gif. The above exchange suggests a rock-and-sock connection. BD2412 T 01:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nomination made and accepted in bad faith. Even if, as may be hoped, nominee were to learn community standards and become a valuable contributor with thousands of edits, I should permanently oppose adminship due to the blatant dishonesty noted by BD above. (The claim of 15,000 edits was actually nominee's 14th edit.) Entrust this one not with keys to the janitorial closet. ~ Ningauble 14:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree completely with BD2412 (which is a strong oppose in case that is not clear). --Herby talk thyme 15:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just close this already; no need to let this run a full term, it's obviously a bogus request. EVula // talk // 15:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship/Archives/2008&oldid=1581904"