Wikiquote talk:Requests for adminship

Closing Votes of confidence
Should the policy at WQ:VOC be revised to allow anyone to close a vote of confidence? When last I checked [//en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship/InvisibleSun_(inactivity_discussion)&diff=1847475 this closer] was not a bureaucrat. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, Cirt didn't "close" the discussion, he merely hatted it. That is to say, he didn't make a declaration of what the result of the discussion was. Cirt's follow-up request at Meta is slightly ambiguous - it could be taken as announcing a result, or as asking a steward to evaluate the discussion and make a decision based on that evaluation. However, it lends itself more to the first interpretation. I do think we should clearly delineate who can close a confidence vote, and it certainly should not be an involved editor. BD2412 T 19:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing the ambiguity. He neglected to post a closing statement here, but he clearly closed it, archived it, and requested removal by a Steward with a closing statement there. I think it is clearly delineated that it should be a Bureaucrat, and I fully agree that a vote should not be closed by the person who made the motion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * True. The removal of rights can always be reversed. I will ask an uninvolved bureaucrat to officially close the discussion. BD2412 T 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I hadn't read that last line, and thought that consensus was clear in this case, and thought that Bureaucrats didn't have the ability to remove sysop rights at this website. -- Cirt (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrats don't have the ability to remove sysop rights; nevertheless, closing discussions relating to user rights is a matter for 'crats. BD2412 T 20:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. Got it. Message received. Communication comprehended. Transmission internalized. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Duration?
How comes that 's RfA was intended to close on 28 November 2018 but ended up lasting until—err—5 February the following year?! —— SerialNumber  54129  14:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Serial Number 54129, basically a smaller project with only four crats, two of which haven't made any edits in 3+ years.  G M G  talk  14:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Blimey :) so it basically means that candidates have to wait for a crat to come along, however long it takes? I wonder—just thinking aloud more than anything—what would happen if, hypothetically, all the votes in that RfA in the first 7 days were supports, but after, opposes piled on. Would the crat restrict their judgement to the first week?  ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * On edit: Looks optimum, then :) ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably the better option overall is just to ping one of our two active crats. Koavf did so, although he waited quite a while. I just shot BD2412 an email, but we had also corresponded via email previously, so I already had his contact information.   G M G  talk  14:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Why I am undoing an edit by a ENWQ- admin for the second time -first draft
I have inserted text into this page to encourage participation by the community of contributors in this wiki. Since I joined this wiki 3-4 years ago, I have never been invited to participate in these discussions, and it appears that regular members of this community who build he content here have not neither. Recent discussions have been dominated by current admins and by outsiders who visit here occasionally.

Here is how one admin here described this process on 6 July 2020:
 * "On other projects, I would be inclined to say, "Wait six months and make constructive edits in the meantime" but this wiki is a small community and is pretty lax when it comes to user rights, etc"

I believe the laxness described above has contributes to a very poor choice of admins, who are supposed to serve the community, not to undermine other contributors. How many of these admins are even aware of AGF (Assume Good Faith, one of the foundations of the wikipedia movement)? For example, the change I made was reverted by the admin in the discussion I referred to above who got in after one support "vote" from a current enwq admin, one weak support from same, and only one other vote from someone who is definitely not one of the contributors of content here.

What I find really distressing is the fact that after I undid the revert by this part-time enwq-admin, it was re-instated by a bureaucrat twice! Ottawahitech (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ottawahitech - I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. But specifically about the edits in question, you made a change to a long-standing set of instructions about selecting admins, without discussion before doing so. This action was questioned and reverted. Rather than at that point opening a discussion on the proposed change, you started edit warring (and continue to do so). None of this is the right way to go about effecting change. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Even if this is something the community endorses, it needs that endorsement, as it could call into question someone's RfA on procedural grounds.  G M G  talk  17:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Your proposed addition might have merits, but it would have been more effective to adhere to the w:Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to gain consensus. Regarding your statement, "As a minimum an announcement should be made at the Village Pump," this does not seem entirely accurate based on many past RfAs where this was not practiced. A better way to phrase this might be, "It is advisable to post an announcement at the Village Pump." However, this suggestion might still require further discussion. Also, could you clarify what you mean by 'this part-time enwq-admin'? 94rain (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Am I getting Commons and WQ confused? Didn't we enable a watchlist notification banner for RfAs? It's been so long since we had one.  G M G  talk  17:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We can do that by creating MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary (Commons has c:MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary) 94rain (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Our current admins seem to be doing an excellent job. The Watchlist notification is an excellent way to get more people involved. I rarely visit Village pump. UPDATE: similarly, per BRD I have undone some significant changes made with no discussion to Administrators, see that talk page to join a discussion. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)