Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Archives/2006

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

This page archives requests in 2006.

I have been an editor on Wikiquote since March 4, 2005; I currently have approximately 314 edits. (Feel free to check Kate's tool.) I have been an administrator on Wikipedia for over six months, and have been an extremely prolific admin. I am also currently up for Meta administrator (as of 14:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC) the results were 18-0-1). I am now a Meta administrator as well. I have done cleanup tasks (mostly formatting) on Wikiquote since I began, and after a discussion with Jeffq on the Village Pump, I've started WikiProject Policy Revision to help revise and build Wikiquote's policy base. I believe adminship would be helpful in this, as it will help me gain a better feel for exactly how Wikiquote is administrated (thus, how the policies should be written), as well as grant me access to protected pages (some of the policies needing revision are currently protected). I believe I have the necessary skills and abilities to be an effective Wikiquote administrator, and I look forward to hearing the community's input. -- Essjay ·   Talk 14:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. For some reason I have never encountered this user here or in other projects before, but the more "background checking" I did today about his recent activities, the more impressed I became. He seems to have a good grasp of English Wikipedia admin work and policies, making him the best candidate we have (after our hardworking super-admin Jeff Q of course!) to help coordinate the policy updating. jni 08:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I must add I find it a little strange that almost all of his edits to Wikiquote were made during last four days. I'm not going to change my vote based on that, but maybe our bureacrat should consider extending the ending date of this vote, if not postponing for a little while like was done with User:Sams? I don't want to be too harsh on this though, because I was myself promoted at least partially based on my sysop experience acquired in Wikipedia. What do others think? jni 09:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly open to having it extended. I realize that most of my work has been done in the last few days, but that is a result of changing my focus from Wikipedia to other projects since I came back from an extended break. I certainly want the Wikiquote community to have ample time to see me in action before making an important decision like this.-- Essjay ·   Talk 03:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. With his substantial energy and commitment to policy work, Essjay made the top of my fast-track list for sysop candidates, but this is much too fast. We have a lot of problems with experienced Wikipedians not realizing the differences in policies and practices on Wikiquote, so it usually takes a few months for them to get enough WQ experience to adjust. I am expecting Essjay's coming experiences on this policy work to blood him (in more ways than one). I anticipate supporting him, but probably not for at least 6 weeks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Unlike Jeff Q, I think that this "should be no big deal", i.e. imho less qualifications are needed than perhaps what Jeff Q has in mind - and we can continue to review how he operates as a new admin. iddo999 17:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - previous Wikimedia adminship elsewhere, and the recent activity by this editor here shows a high level of familiarity with the Wikimedia communities, and competence with many wiki technical details (more than my own). I had also been considering nominating him soon, but had not done so yet because most of his activity here was too recent, and I had not realized that he had been around here to some degree for much longer. I recognize the recent contributions could be helpful, but the primary focus on establishing policy articles and procedures also made me a bit uncomfortable, as beyond the swift elimination of spam and other obvious instances of vandalism I generally prefer a more loose, relaxed and informal atmosphere than is necessarily found on Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia project Wikipedia must develop many rules to properly minimize the intrusion of individual points of view in its articles, while Wikiquote exists more as a testimony and even a celebration of many individual and often peculiar points of view. As with the Wikipedia these should be presented with maximal fairness, accuracy, and with no endorsement of any of the forms of bigotry that might be clearly documented; but potentially, we can accommodate a greater range of "points of view" than the encyclopedia properly can. I also prefer to permit some degree of stylistic variation, and remain opposed to automatic imposition any of particular formats, even though the long standing guidelines and templates which have been developed are generally preferable to any of the innovations that have yet arisen. He also seems to be a very active vandalism fighter, which is always a good thing. In recent periods Jeff, Moshe, and I, who each at some time have been very busy here, all seem to have been even busier with many other things, and as with all wikis the more reliable contributors and admins the better. ~ Kalki 18:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Essjay is now an admin. ~ Kalki 15:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Jaxl is an experienced Wikipedia admin who has been editing on Wikiquote since December 2005, racking up about 500 edits, most of which involve article cleanup, vandalism reversion and warnings, and other maintenance work. Despite being honored by inclusion in Wikipedia's "most reverted admin" list (which indirectly counts the number of nasty user-page attacks from vandals, if I read it correctly), he keeps a cool head under fire, using test templates in progression to provide appropriate warnings to vandals, and in at least one case (User talk:68.170.86.111) calmly responding to vicious attacks not with ripostes but with links showing objective evidence of manifest lies from the editor. He would be a valuable addition to our sysop team. Support. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree with Jeff. iddo999 08:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support without question. Essjay Talk • Contact 15:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. ~ Kalki 18:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain because I don't know him at all currently - so I can't express support at that moment, but I have no reason to oppose him either. Currenty I just say all those votes from trustworthy editors on the above has me expect that it will be fun to work with him. --Aphaia 10:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Concur with Jeff and the others above. ~ UDScott 14:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with Jeff. jni 08:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Jaxl is now an admin here. ~ Kalki 15:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

He's only been here a couple of months, but has already racked up 800 edits, about 600 devoted to article cleanup and improvement, and the rest to Wikiquote maintenance, including vandalism reversion and warnings and VfD nomination and voting. He's been a Wikipedian for over a year (with about 2500 edits), so he's had a decent amount of experience with wiki editing and policy. We could really use another active and conscientious sysop to help out as some of us quasi-old timers have been cutting back a bit. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I accept the nomination. &mdash;LrdChaos 23:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Keep 'em coming, Jeff :-) iddo999 09:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. ~ Kalki 15:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Robert 02:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously. Essjay Talk • Contact 15:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. ~ UDScott 20:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * LrdChaos is now an administrator. ~ Kalki 18:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am nominating InvisibleSun for sysop status. He has been an industrious editor here since beginning his work on Wikiquote last September, and I feel he definitely deserves to be trusted with the additional tools against vandals available to an admin. ~ Kalki 00:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I accept this nomination. InvisibleSun 01:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. I suspect I hadn't noticed InvisibleSun's good work before because it's been largely focused on people articles, too few of which I've been watching. Anyone who does as much work as s/he's done on sourcing and verifying quotes would get my support anyway; his/her anti-vandalism work is a nice bonus. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. I talked to him a little in the past about some specific issues. Anyway, his admin work so far seems good. iddo999 17:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. ~ UDScott 17:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Like Jeff, I largely hadn't seen InvisibleSun's work, which surprises me, given the quality and volume. &mdash;LrdChaos 17:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. -- Robert 23:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * InvisibleSun is now an administrator. ~ Kalki 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

ì Hi this is Paranoid1 as you probably already know I'm pretty much here everyday putting in tv show quotes. Even though it burns me out I really enjoy adding quotes. I don't know why I just has a fixation with quotes. So I don't know if I'm still green to you guys or what but I was thinkg that maybe I could be an admin. I probably won't be that great at spotting bad stuff but I guess I could try. Let me know what you guys think. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paranoid1 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * By looking at Special:Contributions/Paranoid1, in my humble opinion it's pretty good, and therefore I support your request for adminship. However, the threshold for supporting such requests should probably be higher than my preference, i.e. I personally prefer a low threshold compared to what other admins here prefer, in particular the almighty JeffQ. So in case other admins stay neutral or reject your request for now, just stick around and try again in a few months. BTW you shouldn't have marked your request as a minor edit (that's for typos, or trivial reverts, etc.) iddo999 23:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, it would be better to put this request on hold for now, as I see JeffQ and Paranoid1 agreed to at User_talk:Paranoid1. iddo999 11:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Since we don't have any "on hold" state for sysop discussions, and Paranoid1 hasn't made any edits since 31 July 2006, I recommend we close this nomination as unappproved for the time being, without prejudice to a future nomination. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The above is a good illustration that my admins choosing skills suck. I'll shut up from now on. iddo999 20:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

CLOSED - not accepted: 2 opposed; no support. ~ Kalki 00:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this is Cute 1 4 u. I figured since I love television shows, I can help expanding articles by adding more and more quotes. But I want to be an admin not really for over ruling, but more like for keeping vandalism away.Also for helping other users.And I notice that there are only a few admins here. -- ~ * Cute 1 4 u  |talk to me! * ~  05:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose strongly. There are my usual concerns about lack of Wikiquote knowledge and experience, but much more important is that Cute has been blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia for involvement and possible sockpuppetry (more likely meatpuppetry) with like-minded youthful vandals, and has apparently even promised to retaliate on different Wikimedia projects. She also lied about not impersonating actress Raven-Symoné with a WP user ID, but was caught out by a Checkuser investigation, which suggests the extent of trouble she and her friends have been causing WP. (See her WP talk page, especially the "Proof" section and beyond, and w:WP:AN/I.) Finally, she has routinely demonstrated there (and to some extent here as well) that she has little awareness of just how Wikimedia projects work, and how globally spread their information becomes. (She is currently advertising many personal details which, if she is 11 years old, might even get Wikiquote in trouble for allowing this. I'm trying to dig up policy info on this issue.) So far, her edits here have not been harmful (except for her excessive personal info), but she just doesn't qualify as an admin candidate. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did no vandalism and yes I am 11.despite my age...-- ~ * Cute 1 4 u  |talk to me! * ~  08:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose strongly. I'm not familiar with any of the WP events of which Jeffq speaks, so my serious objection is due to lack of experience and familiarity with "the way of things" here. Cute's edit history, which is only about three days of contributions, shows only meaningful edits to two pages in the main namespace, with a couple of redirects, lots of userpage work, and a few Talk pages rounding out the list. Most of the edits seem to be additions and minor cleanups, not efforts to bring either of the pages into line with the appropriate template format. There are no contributions, other than this self-nomination for adminship, to any pages in the Wikiquote: namespace; I'm firmly unconvinced that Cute has read through and understands most of the policies around here, and hasn't been around long enough to see most of them in action. Furthermore, I'm also not sure that Cute is at a level of maturity suitable for a Wikiquote sysop; the Talk: and User talk: contributions seem to bear this out (e.g., on Talk:Raven-Symoné: "I'm here #1 fan"; User talk:Jesussaves: "Hi. I like the articles you created. Holla back!"). &mdash;LrdChaos 14:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. I honestly see why not. I do not think this user should be judged by what they did on Wikipedia. Cute 1 4 does not even hide the fact that this happened, I was in the same situation once but was let out on grounds of AGF. Anyways, Wikiquote needs all the help it can get I dont see what would hurt if this user was Admin... It could only help.--Seadog.M.S


 * Oppose I have no interaction with him or his, but as far as I skimmed his edits, I found a weak sigh of his or her maturity and understanding of policies enough be granted adminship. --Aphaia 04:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

CLOSED - not accepted: 3 opposed; 1 support. ~ Kalki 00:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to self-nominate for adminship. I've been here since February with an account, and made a handful of contributions before from an IP (here). I have about 400 edits and specialise in British politicians, and have been moving to source the quotes where possible; I also do some cleanups and formatting and patrol new pages, and when bored, try to find suitable quotes of the day. I was an admin on Wikipedia for a year and a half. I would like to contribute to the general administration of Wikiquote, and to do more recent changes patrol (I'm in UK time zone, and some vandalism goes undetected if users based in the US are asleep at the time). Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 16:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, why did you stop being an admin at Wikipedia? Your edits and administrative contribs here seem quite good to me, but better wait and see if the other admins would like you to do a little more administrative editing before considering your request. iddo999 21:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To cut a long story short, I was deadminned by the Arbitration Committee. Apart from overuse of rollback, there were two instances: first when at 1 AM, having been blocked for a nonexistent 3RR violation in the middle of an hour-long edit, I self-unblocked (which was not picked up for a day and occurred months before the Arbitration case). The other issue was an article protection, although the version I protected on was later endorsed by an uninvolved admin. Desysopping was not originally going to pass but I refused to accept an article ban imposed as part of the decision, which caused a rethink. However, ultimately the Arbitration Committee did remove the article ban. I have since changed my user name, although this would have happened anyway. I think it's important to point out that admins are allowed to make mistakes as long as they learn from them, which I certainly have, and I also think that three mistakes in 18 months isn't particularly bad going. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that we generally make decisions about new admins just according to their editing on Wikiquote, so Wikipedia history doesn't have a special status in this regard. It can be a pointer, like other things which can be pointers, but it's not a litmus test or anything like that. (I don't mean to imply that your Wikipedia history sounds particularly bad or anything like that). Anyhow, if you keep up the good work here, I assume that the other admins will support your request within some time. iddo999 12:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. It seems to me that Fys has been doing a good job here on Wikiquote and shows a lot of promise. - InvisibleSun 23:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I see a lot of edits provided sources for quotes, which is always a good thing, lots of vandalism reversion, and Fys is also active with votes for deletion. I would have liked to have seen some more participation with some of the Wikiquote: namespace policy pages, but that isn't a "showstopper" to me. —LrdChaos (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support : With many things keeping me busy the last few weeks (and very likely for the next few as well), I have recently been doing little more here than the QotD upkeep, and had not noticed the nomination until after JeffQ responded to it. The responsible edits Fys has made have made me inclined to support the nomination since noticing it, but I didn't wish to be the first or perhaps the only one supporting him, as I would be the one doing the status-changing, and there could conceivably be some opposition. Any squabbles that occurred at Wikipedia, where he has been more active in the past, so far as I investigated them, seem to have been rather minor contentions and misunderstandings, and I found no glaring reasons that would indicate that Fys would not make a good admin here. ~ Kalki 22:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. As Fys approaches 500 edits here and 9 months' participation, his work on articles (including sourcing and cleanup) and in vandalism reversion has been quite solid. (Not to mention 100% edit-summary usage, one of my expectations for excellent wiki editors.) Having been a WP sysop, he obviously knows the ropes there. (I would ask him to specifically review each current WQ policy he intends to take action on, as many of them have some differences from their WP equivalents. And don't be bashful about raising possible discrepancies between our policies and our practices — we're not perfect, either.) Normally, I'd like to see more Wikiquote: space work, but frankly, we could really use a lot of work on sourcing issues in article space, so I wouldn't want him to sacrifice that badly needed effort just to log more work under "Wikiquote:". My biggest concern is that his de-sysopping on WP partly involved "overuse of rollback", which is a problem we have here, too. We (and I am definitely including "I") sometimes rollback edits that are not vandalism, when w:Help:Reverting recommends against that, as it leaves no explanation for the reversion and implies that the edit is vandalistic or at least bad-faith. However, I expect he will be more careful than most to avoid this common pitfall, and will be a valuable contributor to the sysop and general maintenance work here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. In case it wasn't clear above. iddo999 20:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

CLOSED: Fys is now an administrator. ~ Kalki 00:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am placing a Rfda on Jeffq. I have notified him on his talk page. He showed his incompentance as an Administrator, last night. Any questions, just ask. Thanks. Nyarlathotep 20:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support As nominator. Nyarlathotep 20:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose, and I think this nomination is in bad faith. For as long as I've been here, Jeff has been the most visible admin, with all his work with welcomes, policies, etc. Even if he did make a mistake in this case (and the burden is on you, Nyarlathotep, to convince me that it was not a mistake), a single mistake that, at worst, would result in you being unable to edit pages here for three days (note that this was not a permaban) is hardly grounds for de-adminning, and certainly doesn't warrant your gross overreaction. —LrdChaos (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "and the burden is on you, Nyarlathotep, to convince me that it was a mistake" -Are you suggesting he knew Dragonfire1024 and I were not impostors? Nyarlathotep 21:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I left out a "not" in there (which I've now inserted). The way it reads now is the way I originally intended: the burden is on you to show me that this was an intentionally malicious act. —LrdChaos (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That all right. Now I can answer your question:

I do agree that it was a mistake. The problem I see is that Jeffq should know that as, an administrator, much power is vested in his hands. Blocking users which have done no vandalism is an abuse of those powers -whether he though there was a threat from Dragonfire1024 an I or not. Mistakes as such are contrary to the Wiki platform of AGF Openness etc., and while I value Jeffq’s contributions to Wikiquote, it is my firm belief that he needs some time away from the tools where he can rethink his "strategy". Thanks for the question. Nyarlathotep 21:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose I notice in your block log that Jeffq is also the one who unblocked you after he researched this further. We have only a few active admins here, and quite frequent vandalism issues, thus also quite frequent blocks of new users. I find your use of the term "incompentance" to describe what appears to be an isolated mistake (false positive, i.e. falsely claiming to identify a vandal) out of mountains of constant work against vandalism to be hurried and rude, particularly because he took the time to look further and then unblock you. In any case, I don't see how a single false positive that has nothing to do with malice is supposed to warrant a Rfda. iddo999 21:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Close nomination. Now that the person who made this nomination has been exposed and blocked as a vandal, there is no reason to continue this process. - InvisibleSun 23:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Even if the 'crawling chaos' (H. P. Lovecraft) had not revealed himself as a cowardly vandal, it would still not be worth a desysopping for making an honest mistake. In any case there is no 'request for de-adminship' procedure. Close this nomination. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 00:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

CLOSED as a facetious request by a known vandal. ~ Kalki 00:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)