Wikivoyage:User rights nominations/Archives/2020

User:The dog2
He or she was user Superdog in Wikitravel days, has been active here regularly since the move, & seems to me to meet all the qualifications. See Talk:Fujian (down at the end of the section) for the discussion that led to the nomination. Pashley (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the discussion shows he wants to be admin, but if he does, I support and think he would be a reliable and trustworthy administrator. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm going to have to oppose. The dog2 is a valuable contributor who we should all be thankful for, but he has shown a repeated tendency to go needlessly into controversial issues not related to travel and has previously made many edits based on observations about the United States based on his limited personal experience of it that are at odds with everyone else's experience and knowledge, leading to long, distracting debates. I also saw that he expressed doubt about being an admin himself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think The dog has done a commendable job reining in the worst of the tendencies Ikan described above, but I think there's still room for improvement in that regard. I think he's potential admin material in the future, but as of right now,  not yet . -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 *  Conditional support - It may be too late to persuade those of you who have opposed, but I'm going to try anyway. I've given this a lot of thought since the nomination went up yesterday, because there were reasons in my head to support and reasons to be cautious. On the support side, The dog2 has a huge amount of wiki experience, certainly more than I do, and that includes admin-like functions such as reverting vandalism and participating in policy discussions. In many ways, he's already an admin without the buttons.


 * The reasons I felt more cautious are obvious, because they've already been stated. I have also been frustrated in the past by the long, non-travel-related discussions. However, I agree with Andre that the "worst tendencies" have been "reined in", but additionally and crucially, I don't think those conversations should count against The dog2 in whether he qualifies for admin. Have these off-topic posts annoyed people? Yes. But so what? I annoy some people, too, and so do some other admins (you know who you are!). Has The dog2 ever edit warred over these contentious issues? Not as far as I know. Has The dog2 respected the consensus when other users have gone against his proposals? Absolutely yes.


 * Self-aggrandisement aside, all an admin is, is someone we trust to have a few extra buttons for site maintenance and fighting vandalism. Nothing I know about The dog2's edit history or personality gives me any doubt that I can trust him to perform those tasks in a manner which respects policy and common decency.


 * What's the "condition", you ask? Well, as two of you have already pointed out, the linked discussion doesn't show a great deal of enthusiasm on The dog2's part; if we've misread that and he does actually want to be an admin, then he has my support both now and, if necessary, a later nomination down the line.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what I think. We need to remember the purpose of administrators and why they are nominated: patrolling, vandalism, deleting pages according to the proper procedure, etc. I don't see how off-topic discussions have any connection to those actions.
 * Sometimes we unfortunately assume that "admin" means "power," so we think that we shouldn't give that power and influence to contributors with whom we've had concerns, either at the present or in the past. But the "power" given to an administrator (to revert vandalism, etc.) shouldn't be confused with the consensus that guides the community. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: If I may have a few words, certainly, becoming an admin is a big responsibility, and the last thing I want to do is become one just for the sake of boosting my own ego. That's the main reason why I have been apprehensive to recommend myself for the position. That said, if the community feels that I can do a good job as one, I'd be willing to serve.
 * And to address some of the previous issues regardless of the outcome of this discussion, looking back, I will admit that my understanding of the U.S. was a lot more limited at that time, especially since my circle back then was mainly limited to college students or fresh college graduates. My views have definitely changed since then, and while this is not a forum for political discussions, I will say that from meeting and getting to know more people over the past few years, I have definitely noticed there are more reasonable people on the left than I realised, and not every left-leaning American is on the extreme end of the PC spectrum (in fact, I have since found that even some solid leftists like Kyle Kulinski, David Pakman, Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian have called out that kind of extreme PC censorship).
 * Anyway, I'll leave it to the community to decide what capacity I can best contribute as, and whatever the decision is, I want to say that I'm glad to be part of this community, and I'm still happy to contribute regardless of what capacity I am assigned to. The dog2 (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I find ThunderingTyphoons!' argument convincing. I remember as well that there was a similar sentiment when SelfieCity was promoted to admin, but concerns that he might misuse the sysop tools proved to be unfounded. I'm going to strike out my "not yet" comment, but will need think for a while about how to proceed forward from there. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I, too, have crossed out my opposing vote. I understand the pro arguments, agree that The dog2 has a positive attitude, and will respect the consensus on this nomination. And whether he's an admin or not, I'll be happy to continue working with him. Ikan Kekek 14:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Have crossed out "Conditional" to just support given the answer.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't welcome this nomination when I saw it because of The dog2's tendency to see Wikivoyage as a place to write about politics and history without the constraints of requiring reliable sources. This discussion shows that that tendency is still strong, although constrained by the recognition that others will push back. However, Thundering Typhoons!, Selfie City and AndreCarrotflower have convinced me. We have every reason to believe that s/he will use admin powers responsibly, and no reason to believe that s/he will abuse them, so I support this nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - The dog2 has been here for a long time, and knows his way around. While he's added some controversial content to articles in the past, I couldn't imagine he'd start using admin privileges for harmful edits. Ypsilon (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The more I ruminate on this, the more I realize the importance of the quibbles about irrelevant/contentious information are just a minor blip on what is, on the whole, a very long and productive, even distinguished, record on Wikivoyage. I was just reading The dog2's remarks on the RfC regarding what variety of English to use in our coverage of China, and I think that's a perfect example of the valuable perspective he brings to the table. In fact, you could argue that a tendency to not see eye-to-eye with the prevailing opinion is an asset rather than a liability when it comes to elevating a user to the admin team, as it forces us to see things from a different perspective and helps us avoid the pitfalls of groupthink. IMO, there's no good reason for me to hold off on a support vote. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with no reservations. We've been building Age of Discovery off of each other lately, we quarrel over some words, but overall, the partnership is nice and constructive. He's welcome to the line. Ibaman (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. They have been consistently active for many years, making substantial contributions to a wide variety of articles, and have worked with others to improve WV's policies as well as content. --Bigpeteb (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: In case any clarification is helpful, I have no further objection to this nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 14 days have passed and it looks like we've got a pretty solid consensus. I'm going to flip the bit tomorrow or so; if there are any last-minute objections, now's your time to speak up. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Result - nomination successful. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for transwiki importer: User:SelfieCity
w:Category:Copy to Wikivoyage lists 3 Wikipedia pages are considered better off on the Wikivoyage project. We need someone with transwiki importer rights to move these articles to Wikivoyage. SelfieCity has agreed to take this on. I will commit to adapting the resulting articles to Wikivoyage format and content requirements. Ground Zero (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I've never seen a nomination for "transwiki importer". Does an admin need to be specially nominated for such a role? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: transwiki importer grants  rights that are already included in the admin group, so this is unneeded --DannyS712 (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * OK! So any admin can do this? That’s great. Is there a tutorial somewhere explaining how to do it? I’ll take a look on Wikipedia. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've imported stuff before from Wikipedia and didn't need any extra rights. I just went to Special:Import. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m only seeing three options, though. What about the other wikis? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's only setup for 3. I'm guessing it might be a phabricator ticket to get others added. I was just importing from Wikipedia, so used the "w" option and put the page name in the box below that. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you. I have imported Vienna microbreweries, so it seems to have worked. Ground Zero (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Result: no action taken — the nomination was unnecessary. Ground Zero (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Andyrom75
I'd like to nominate Andyrom75 for the Administrator role and also the Interface Admin role as well. This nomination is a little bit different from some others in that Andyrom75 does not have a large editing history here but they do maintain the ListingEditor gadget and I think it would be beneficial if they could update it themselves. Andyrom75 does have a longer editing history over at the Italian Wikivoyage, where they are already an Administrator. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Trusted editor of the website; support, assuming administrator rights are needed to complete said tasks. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (The contribution history looks long enough to me.) --SelfieCity

Thanks to everybody! :-) -- Andyrom75 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. And agreed that he has a pretty extensive posting history on en.voy, since January, 2013. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Most of us know Andyrom, and the Italian community obviously trust him.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for the reasons listed above. Ground Zero (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support trusted, valid need --DannyS712 (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support — Given that the Italian Wikivoyage community trusts him, I don't see why we shouldn't. The dog2 (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support agree with the above. Gizza ( roam ) 23:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Promoted (demoted?) by acclamation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:DannyS712
- user is very experienced and active in Wikidata, Wikispecies and Wikipedia, engaged in janitorial work in Wikivoyage, and has expressed wish for access to adminship. As for the last days, I can testify lots of efforts on user's side against vandalism here, in an agile and efficient manner, which compels me to action to nominate. Ibaman (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for those kind words and for the nomination, which I accept. While I don't have as many contributions to the content side of things here on Wikivoyage, I have been working to combat some vandals/long term abusers here, where adminship would help with blocking/revision deletion/protection as necessary. I have experience with the tools from other wikis and will be sure to take things slow and ask for advice if there are things I am not familiar with regarding using the tools here on Wikivoyage. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator. Ibaman (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Oh, definitely. Danny has been really helpful in combatting vandalism, giving coverage when admins weren't online. I will say this: If anyone is concerned that he has yet to participate in other aspects of this site, we could at least make him a Patroller, but I think Admin is the right status because that way, he can block vandals. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as at least patroller, but if it comes down to a question of patroller vs. full-fledged administrator, I have no problem with the latter option. I think it's obvious that Danny wouldn't misuse the sysop tools if he had access to them, and that's the most important consideration. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Ikan Kekek @AndreCarrotflower I've been a patroller since November 2019, see Special:Redirect/logid/3586934 and User talk:AndreCarrotflower/2019 --DannyS712 (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Sure. Danny's main activity here has been reverting vandalism; and given the furious reactions he's received on his talk page by vandals it's obvious he's really good at it. --Ypsilon (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Question - There's no doubt about DannyS712's good faith and great track record; the user rights he has elsewhere in the Wikimedia family speak for themselves. What I want to clarify is what Danny envisages using the admin buttons for. Is it just for reverting and blocking obvious vandals when they arise, or does he plan to be more involved on a day-to-day basis, e.g. dealing with touts, guiding newbies, deleting pages, patrolling edits? If the former, then more power to him; however, if the latter, I wonder whether he feels he has a strong enough understanding of Wikivoyage's policies and conventions? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I already patrol edits so that wouldn't change. At first I would focus on just the reverting/blocking/deletions of obvious vandals, but as I get more familiar with the specifics of enwikivoyage I would hopefully feel comfortable working with new users, touts, etc. For now, my understanding is definitely not strong enough to do those. As I noted above, I "will be sure to take things slow and ask for advice if there are things I am not familiar with" DannyS712 (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh, sorry for the lack of a response. I find your answer acceptable, so support the nomination.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * it seems we have achieved consensus about promoting Danny to admin. Let's do it? As of this moment, I would be glad if he could already be blocking vandals. Ibaman (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. It would be great to have another defender on the job. Ground Zero (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: As you can see in the green section above, the rule is to wait until 14 days have passed since the nomination before changing a nominee's status to admin. So be patient. I also think we've generally required at least 7 supporting votes, but I stand to be corrected. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then let's add my support. –LPfi (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Today it's been 14 days since the nomination. --Ypsilon (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Promoted by unanimous vote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)