Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Archive 1

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Requests for adminship

User:Taoster For some reason, my request was purged (most likely in error). --Taoster

User:Karen Johnson Can I put in a request please? I'd like to have admin rights here so I can fix up my own boneheaded naming-mistakes in the cookbook instead of leaving a mess for other people to clean up... I haven't broken the en:wikipedia yet and I've been an admin there for a long time :) KJ 07:46, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support Dysprosia 08:08, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support Gentgeen 09:28, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
TUF-KAT 15:13, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Perl 17:24, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Karen should be an admin on this wiki now. --mav 03:40, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fleminra (1/0)

please. Perl 23:31, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Perl

Guanaco — I would like to help keep the Wikibooks project free of spam and other garbage. I have been a sysop on the English Wikipedia since May 15. I also am working on images, and the ability to delete exact duplicates would be very helpful.

Support TUF-KAT 08:22, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
User now a sysop. TUF-KAT

User:Furrykef -- I may be a bit late on jumping on the Wikibooks bandwagon, but I have confidence that I know what I'm doing. :) I'm a sysop (and currently primary creator of content) at PTWiki, and a regular user and editor of Wikipedia (I haven't requested adminship there because I felt I don't really need it).

Support TUF-KAT 06:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
User now a sysop. TUF-KAT

Reytan - I would be the first Polish sysop on Wikibooks and sysops's opportunities are very useful (I'm a sysop on Polish Wikipedia) (sorry for my English)

Support. --Furrykef 19:38, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Support TUF-KAT 06:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
User now a sysop. TUF-KAT

[edit] AlbertCahalan ( talk | email | contribs )

I'd like to delete things according to exception 1 (No meaningful content or history) and 4 (Very short pages with no definition or context). For example, a page goes in with the wrong name and is immediately renamed, leaving behing a redirect like Coobkook:Barbecueing is. (look closely; there is a typo) Another example would be dead categories... the cookbook has a way of collecting cruft. AlbertCahalan 05:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note that, despite the above, I am clearly not a deletionist. Just the opposite: I have an additional need to see deleted pages; pages with real content sometimes disappear (in clear violation of policy) without even a vote. For some strange reason, admin rights are required for this. AlbertCahalan 23:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For the record for this discussion: Perhaps you can let us know that you wouldn't persue an "anti-deletionist" agenda in the event you are granted admin rights? For example, the process does allow for some entries to deleted (in addition, the deletion process can expand, and has been expanded in the past, in order to exclude entries that do not belong on wikibooks). Would you be willing to let that process continue, despite perhaps ideological differences you'd have with it? MShonle 21:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It all depends on what you mean by that. Obviously I will make efforts to prevent needless destruction of pages with actual content. An awful lot of that seems to go on around here. On the other hand, when a strong majority feels that something does not belong, it must go. Note that, statistically, it is an abomination to count a handful of votes and call it a consensus. AlbertCahalan 01:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It depends upon what you mean by needless. Nobody here at wikibooks, as far as I've seen, has ever needlessly deleted a page: further, undeletion is a forum for addressing those concerns. Basically, I trust the wiki spirit, and if there are good reasons to keep something, those reasons will shine from the discusion and people will do the right thing. So, I disagree with your claim that "an awful lot of that seem to go on around here." For example, you voted to keep the Getting a girl book, but Jimbo and most of the other administrators believed it should be deleted. Does that qualify as a "needless" deletion to you? MShonle 02:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I oppose. You are uncooperative and argumentative with others and you seem to believe "anything" can be a wikibook, no matter how against the spirit of the project. If you want to have short pages deleted I recommend that you simply post them on candidates for speedy deletion. MShonle 02:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It should be noted that MShonle is one of two users with personal reasons to argue with me and oppose adminship. MShonle has in fact argued with me against undeletion of an article that was destroyed in violation of policy (it had content, and did not go to a VfD -- it needs to be restored in VfD status). He has also proposed to delete a legitimate Cookbook ingredient that I added (maybe it offends him), persisting even though he is not a Cookbook contributer and I am one of the most serious cookbook contributers. The other user I expect opposition from is the one who deleted in violation of policy, but perhaps he will abstain or do the right thing. AlbertCahalan 04:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support. We need more good anti-deletionists like you! --Node ue 04:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: this user's contributions are slim: possible sock puppet. MShonle 04:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh my that's sinking low. You can find him over on wikipedia, same user, with a history of over 2500 edits going back to 12 Sep 2003. (for your next objection, note my comment on his wikipedia talk page which verifies that he is the same user on both wikis) You have 701 edits here, and 428 there, and you only go back to 18 Jan 2004. Now I'm sure you'll say that I must be the sock puppet for him, so... would a sock puppet provide over two dozen original recipes? Also, if you have a Linux box, type "man ps" and email the maintainer -- that's me, and do note that I use my real name. Heck, I probably wrote code in the kernel running on en.wikibooks.org even. You should not have indented Node_ue's vote as if it were a comment applied to your own. Why did you do that? Seriously, you'd better explain yourself. I have restored his original indentation, and adjusted follow-ups to match. AlbertCahalan 06:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm not endorsing any agendas here but AlbertCahalan seems like a regular and proficient contributor. -- mattrix 20:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm new here, so don't know much, but AlbertCahalan seems to have made a good number of edits. makiaea 19:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that this user was not granted admin status. - Aya T C 21:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The bellman ( talk | email | contribs )

I would like to be able to have admin status, mainly because im sick of chinese wikispam on wikibooks that i am editing (mainly quechua, and wikijunior). I am active on lots of different wikis (most active on en.wikipedia), and 3 mailing lists. I have never been in an edit/revert/flame war, and i dont think anyone could doubt that i am a good-faith contributor. My only real wikisin, is that i sometimes forget to do summaries of my edits. thanks. The bellman 10:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) i withdraw my request due to a lack of reacent activity on this wiki on my behalf. The bellman 02:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Huh? You got support 21 Jan 2005, and no opposition. While this is statistically lame, adminship can be granted and revoked without destroying anything really. As far as I can tell, you simply need to remind a bureaucrat. AlbertCahalan 02:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It's silly, but I oppose for as long as this user's user page is an interwiki redirect to wikipedia. Setting up such a redirect makes it difficult to leave wikibooks specific messages, or check wikibooks related edits. Gentgeen 23:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, i didnt realise that anyone had any prob with that. I just did it so that i would be able to check just one talk page. (so that for example if someone comments on something that i did on wiktionary or another (god only knows how many) of the other projects (or languages) i can know of the message as soon as possible.) Of course all of this wont matter as much when they introduce universal login. The bellman 00:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't object if the content of the user page and talk page were simply, "Leave me a message at my wikipedia user page, because I'm there more often." Gentgeen 01:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Fixed. Sorry, didnt realise it was a prob. The bellman 10:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks, now I support. Gentgeen 19:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note, this user was admin'd, but not recorded here. - Aya T C 21:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boit ( talk | email | contribs )

I would like to become an administrator in the English Wikibooks Site. Although I have not contributed much to the world of the Wikibooks themselves, with the exception of German , I am responsible for the famous square blobs, whose created was prompted by the need for small, clear indicaters usable by colourblind or visually impared users (75%.png, 100%.png, etc) used not only in English Wikibooks but also in many of the foreign language versions of Wikibooks (Including: Spanish, Estonian, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Finnish, Tamil and Traditional Chinese).

Note that this user was not granted admin status. - Aya T C 21:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Omegatron ( talk | email | contribs )

I'm an admin on en. I've been writing in wikibooks: Electronics since March 2004. I just use it for spam rollbacks and deleting my own experiments. - Omegatron 15:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support MShonle 17:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Besides a good history of edits, this user pitched in to deal with User:Gumba gumba. If Omegatron had admin rights, he could have been far more effective. AlbertCahalan 21:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note, this user was admin'd, but not recorded here. - Aya T C 21:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andreas Ipp ( talk | email | contribs )

I'd like to apply for admin status in order to be able to edit the main page. I know I am a relatively new user here, but I am also a very careful editor - first reading through talk pages to see how things have been working before, which ideas were rejected, which were accepted, partly going through the "history" of pages, before I make changes.

As an example, I initiated the voting for the book of the month (February) not without prior studying the German Wikibooks "Buch des Monats" ("book of the month") that is working successfully there, and studying different voting systems on MetaWiki and Wikipedia, before adjusting a set of voting rules for our purposes.

I also created the new {{stage|...}} templates Development stage: 100% (as of Jan 17, 2005)(Jan 17, 2005) which in the ALT text show a description and the assignment date when placing the mouse Development stage: 100% (as of Jan 17, 2005) above, added the Help:Development stages page, and did numerous minor correction contributions to various books. I unified the cycling process on the main page of the "Featured Wikibooks", "New Wikibooks", and "Struggling Wikibooks" templates (such that all entries contain a date with the newest book first - I went through each template's history to set the correct dates!), and reverted a dozen "Chinese" vandalisms.

I would need admin status to more prominently and correctly place the voting link on the main page (right now it is in the Featured template since this is not blocked), and to prominently place the Book of the month once it has been elected.

All of the edits will be in the spirit to present Wikibooks not only to writers, but also to readers. When I came here the first time, not so long ago, I was quite disappointed when clicking on a few books of the main page to find that they are no more than what Wikipedians would call a "stub". Only after spending some time, starting to reevaluate development stages and time-stamping them, I noticed what marvellous books are hidden in Wikibooks. I would like to promote those diamonds of treasure to the casual reader who might not spend as much time to browse around, while keeping the open character of Wikibooks to still attract writers. "Book of the month", rotating "Featured books" or "most active books" is only the beginning of a very gradually introduced set of changes to enhance the Wikibook experience - both for readers and for writers. --Andreas Ipp 17:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, while he is certainly quite new, he has more than shown good faith towards our lil library, and he has initiated quite a few good inititaves. I also agree with Jimbo, in that adminship shouldnt be that big a deal. The bellman 07:12, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: He's done great work and he has my trust. MShonle 23:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. Dysprosia 07:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Andreas Ipp 08:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yann ( talk | email | contribs )

I would like to become administrator in the English Wikibooks. I am already Administartor in the French Wikibooks, Wiktionary and Wikipedia, as well as Wikicommons and Wikisource. Thanks. Yann 12:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support This user has only 325 edits, but has been here sense September, 2003, and seems to be a valuable contributor. Gentgeen 23:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Davodd 09:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support TUF-KAT 23:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support 82.69.58.117 04:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note, this user was admin'd, but not recorded here. - Aya T C 21:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I will do my best. Yann 10:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] KelvSYC ( talk | email | contribs )

I'd like to apply only because it appears that the admin ranks on this wiki are woefully undermanned. Deletion decisions on VFD take too long, and relatively little action is taken against vandals and spammers. Also, the lack of any hard policy standards with regards to book naming, fair-use images, among other things, is a serious issue that needs to be addresssed. I believe that I can contribute to this, and perhaps make existing Wikibooks conform to such a standard when it is made. Some would argue that I could do this even if I was not an admin, but as an admin, it would have a sense of legitimacy.

As for my contributions, I am the founder of two Wikibooks, the largest of which is the Pokémon family of books. I was listed as the contributor with the most amount of edits in February 2005 trying to upload all of the data to that book.

I am not an admin on any other Wikimedia wiki, nor do I have an intention of applying as an admin at any other Wikimedia wiki. I feel that I can add a lot more to this wiki if I were an admin.

KelvSYC 17:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Support TUF-KAT 16:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Gentgeen 22:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note, this user was admin'd, but not recorded here. - Aya T C 21:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan524 ( talk | email | contribs )

I know i am new, but just please hear me out, i am already a sysop on the english wikinews and have fot an award for fighting vandalism their, see wikinews:User:Ryan524, and i got 0 oppose votes when i nominated on Wikinews, see wikinews:Wikinews:Administrators/Archive#Ryan524 i had techniacally ony 4 votes i know, thats couting the bureaucrat that made me a sysop, cause the final say on wikinews goes to a bureaucrat). And i would like to extend the scope of my work to here, i am already creating two wikiversity schools, writing many books for the classes/lessons of each and also i fight vandalism, and I find while admins powers are't needed, it makes my job of doing it easier, and with the frequency i do it (atleast on wikinews, it gets stressfull when i don't even have the rollback button, muchless when i have to find a sysop online to block them).

Response to request verifying i am also the owner of User Ryan524 on Wikinews: wikinews:User_talk:Ryan524#wikibooks.--Ryan524 05:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Ryan524 has been very active in eliminating vandalism over at Wikinews over the past month. If even half as active over here, it would be a great help. Most importantly, Ryan524 is a administrator over at Wikinews already. I didn't see any of the abruptness that one supporter of his adminship commented on. One slight reservation that I have, is Ryan524's relatively low numbers of edits, especially on Wikibooks (with 364, 295, and 17 edits on Wikipedia, Wikinews, and Wikibooks respectively; 676 edits in total, if that is important to you). (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 11:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm slightly concerned that Ryan524 hasn't contributed to Wikibooks in almost a month. I had hoped the he would assist with fighting vandalism here. Consequently, my enthusiasm for his promotion has waned somewhat. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 00:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Sometimes people have rather busy schedules that come in cycles. We can give Ryan some more time and see if he is still interested. MShonle 02:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not withdrawing my support, I want to give Ryan some more time too. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 03:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose: While we certainly could use some more admins... and somebody with admin experience could be useful in some situations here on Wikibooks, I think Ryan524 should gain a little experience trying to actually write a Wikibook here first, and get to know the situation here from an ordinary user viewpoint first. Mind you, I don't oppose him due to any specific issue, but I feel that somebody who is going to be given the power to delete content and in general get some "stripes" in terms of having more "privileges" here should get to know some of the policies more carefully. For instance, involvement in the VfD discussion is a way to test a user to see if they understand deletion policies. And writing a Wikibook is hard, as everybody who has been here for awhile can attest to. Wikinews is a very different environment than Wikibooks, and you have to be considerably more patient with new users here and let them experiment much more than is tolerated over at Wikinews... for a good reason. A random news article like Harry Potter dies in Wizard duel is likely going to get deleted immediately, but a Harry Potter "news article" of a similar nature would not only be tolerated but encouraged here (provided it was a part of a larger Wikibook). If he gets involved with Wikibooks even to a small degree...writing his own Wikibook (like for instance a guide to using Wikinews even) with some of the common frustrations of trying to get content organized into a book, I would support him instead. --Rob Horning 23:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm tempted to agree with Rob on this one, so I'm going to deny this request for now. As you may already know, I'm trying to cut down the length of time it takes to get a definite response for such requests, so I'd rather make a decision now, than let the guy hang on forever in anticipation.

After having chatted to some of the Wikimedia founders, sysadmins and other veterans on IRC, the consensus seems to be that being an admin on one site should not have much bearing on becoming an admin on other sites. In fact, if he spends most of his time on Wikinews, he's probably not going to spend much time on here.

Also, having looked thru his edit history on this site, I don't think he's quite had enough experience with this site to be admin'd just yet. Wikibooks is without doubt the most awkward site to manage due to its rather unusual naming policy. After Ryan has gained a bit more editing experience, he is free to re-apply (although more likely I or another admin will nominate him when this is the case).

I shall archive this section approximately one week from today. - Aya T C 01:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Garrett ( talk | email | contribs )

Hi (understatement of the century). As many of you are aware, the structure and organisation of Wikibooks is a mess. Right now I see a backlog of Vfds and recurring IP vandals and such, and am itching to help sort them out--but, darn, I don't have my deletion tab here! I'm already an admin at Wikipedia (see w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Master Thief Garrett for more) as well as the fledgling Academic Publishing Wiki, and I'm eager to have similar more efficient cleanup powers here too. So, um, what else can I say? Oh, I know... vote for me!!! :) GarrettTalk 04:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - Garrett is a familiar face around the place, and is really helpful in fighting vandalism. We need someone around here who knows what they're doing (that's a criticism of my own teething troubles, and not anyone else's ;). (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 06:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - You're not an admin already? I know that Wikipedia suggests that admins don't nominate themselves, but for right now I don't see a problem with active Wikibookians who have been engaged in edits for some time (like Garrett) from nominating themselves. There is a serious backlog on what should be occuring, and right now we need some more admins. With more of them around, they can police themselves as well if they get out of control. --Rob Horning 06:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Definately trustworthy and active, but also the more selfish reason that, since this user is one of the few who actually marks junk for deletion, it would save me (an the other admins) time if he just deleted it himself. :-) It's ridiculously easy to undelete stuff should something go wrong. - Aya T C 19:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Familiar, trustworthy, friends...what other reasons required for someone who has proven themselves to be dedicated to getting rid of vandalism and nonsense. - Serge 11:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- MShonle 17:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Done - Will archive one week from today. Aya T C 23:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cspurrier ( talk | email | contribs )

Hello, I think Wikibooks is a great project, with a great future. I think I can be helpful to the project as an admin. While I only registered my username recently I have been browsing on Wikibooks for several months. Even though I am new here, I am not a newbie to the Wikis, I have been editing for about a year on Wikipedia, and I am very active on Wikinews. I have been editing on Wikinews since mid-March and have made 2713 edit according to Kate's tool. I have been an Admin on Wikinews since 25 May 2005.

While most of my writing is for Wikinews, I plan to help as much as I can with clean up tasks here. I monitor the recent changes IRC channel for Wikibooks and I have caught several vandals. I have read as many of the policy documents as I can find on Wikibooks, and I believe I fully understand the areas in that Wikibooks policy differs from Wikinews policy. --Cspurrier 02:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - It's true, he sits on the RC channel, and reverts vandalism as it happens. I think he at least deserves the rollback feature. :) - Aya T C 02:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Why not, the more anti-vandals the better. Cspurrier's contributions here are relatively few, but they haven't been concentrated in only one place. Geo.T 03:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - (Neither for nor against this particular request) This is nothing personal against you, Cspurrier, but something to note in general. I would not like to see people becoming admins that are trying to "pad their resumes" and claim that they are an admin on X projects, letting a fact like that get them a swelled head. If this is a request for adminiship for such a reason, it would be better if you just lie low and get a feel for this project first and try to help out where you don't need admin authority. A tremendous amount of work can be done by an ordinary editor/contributor, including quite a bit of general cleanup. If you become an admin, particularly from Wikinews, you need to remember to go extra light here and avoid deleting any content unless it specifically is against the stated policies here on Wikibooks. Even then, err on the side of caution and certainly don't delete things that are still trying to be started. Stubs are very reasonable to happen here, and there are also going to be a bunch of mistakes from new users trying all sorts of things. Obvious vandals, of course, need to be dealt with swiftly and strongly, but I have no doubt you can help out with that sort of issue. I hope that your experience here on Wikibooks is a good one regardless of wheither you get this admin position. --Rob Horning 12:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Comment - I can't say I really know much about Cspurrier enough to make a decision. While I trust Aya that he's probably the same guy who is very helpful I'd rather wait and vote for someone with a longer history. And I think it's important for that trust to be gained by more than just one person, it should be gained by several people in the community. (For just one example of what I mean: I could set up IPs in two different domains. With one I vandalize the wiki, with the other I sit on IRC and then undo what I just did an hour before. I've gained the trust of those sitting on IRC and boom, I'm an admin.) Now, I don't think that's likely the case at all here, because of his admin status on WN, but it does show the importance of gaining trust. For example, I don't think anyone could possibly "fake" all of the hard work AlbertCalhan or Kellen have done on the wiki... that's only something you see in true devotion. Perhaps there needs to be a policy that if someone becomes an admin on WB primarily because of the status of being an admin on another wiki that, should they do anything to be removed of admin privileges, they are stripped of the status on all wikis? MShonle 21:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Done - Aya T E C 16:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Derbeth ( talk | email | contribs )

I noticed there is a number of vandalisms being not reverted in English Wikibooks (I once caught one in Wikibooks:About remaining there for about a month). Also, sites marked for speedy deletion wait for long time. I think I'm able to help fighting with vandalism.

I don't have many contributions to English Wikibooks, but I've been an active sysop of Polish Wikibooks for 8 months [1]. I think I might be useful, because I live in Poland and have completely different timezone then people in US, so I can catch vandalisms when other sysops are f.e. sleeping. --Derbeth 09:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - After having reviewed this user's edit history, it seems they have put in a lot of effort keeping Wikibooks clean and tidy. - Aya T E C 18:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Though my vote is moot, I think the other-language WikiBookians could help nip some spammers in the bud before they get to spam too much (because their IP can be blocked here quickly too). --MShonle 22:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Done - Although I was hoping for a few more votes from other users. - Aya T E C 16:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you'd waited for me to get off my butt and check his edit history there probably would have been another support vote! AlbertCahalan 03:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Aya, perhaps in the future you could give us a day's notice, just in case? That could help show consensus and motivate people like Albert and me to respond. --MShonle 04:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Well. The text above gives the impression that a decision will be made in a week, to prevent the problems we had previously when there was no strict deadline, and Wikibooks was slowing running out of active admins. The user made the request on the 23rd Sep, so the decision should've been made on the 30th Sep, although I didn't actually implement it until the 3rd Oct. Still. It all worked out okay in the end. - Aya T E C 18:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whiteknight ( talk | email | contribs )

After a good amount of time to think it over, i decided to request adminship. My primary concern (and primary expertise) is in the area of Electrical Engineering, a subject that wikibooks currently has a dirth of information on. I have added 2 new books on the shelf, Circuit Theory, and Circuit Theory 2, and would like to add more in the future once these first two become self-supporting. I would also like to work towards a series of standard Engineering Templates, and perhaps even start preparing some general guidelines for future Engineering Wikibook writers and contributers. --Whiteknight 18:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Support -- Although you're relatively new to our fair project you do have the knack for writing, and we need to get more contributors like you. MShonle 21:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • support -- He seems to care about the project, and we still don't have enough admins. AlbertCahalan 00:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - A fine-looking edit history. Can't see any problems here. - Aya T E C 18:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, good contributors get the rewards they deserve. I wholeheartedly stand by Jimbo's proclamation that adminship should be "no big deal". GarrettTalk 01:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Done - Aya T E C 11:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ђорђе Д. Божовић ( talk | email | contribs )

I'm developing the Serbian language learning textbook, Serbian Grammar, and Serbian History modules. While working on these books, many vandals will certainly appear. Sysop rights can allow me to block and stop them. I could erase inproper pictures and articles that can appear, too. I already am an administrator at Serbian and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. I came to English Wikibooks two months ago, and I've got about 500 edits now, but that number increases by every day, as I'm writing Serbian lessons and texts... --Ђорђе Д. Божовић 18:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Are sysop rights necessary for you? Do you want to use them only at Serbian books? What about your knowledge of Wikibooks policies and Wiki formatting? --Derbeth 21:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I've been at Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, Wikisources and Wikibooks for a nice time. I shall use sysop rights properly. Developing Serbian textbook will last about two or three years at least, even more. I first came to Serbian Wikipedia to write a few articles about Zlatibor Mtn., tourist destination where I live, and since then I've contributed to tozens of other articles, and I've became an every-day member of Serbian Wikipedia community. Just like here: I'm starting with Serbian textbook, but I hope to stay and contribute more to Wikibooks.--Ђорђе Д. Божовић 21:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm leaning in favor of support for this request, but I'm not quite prepared to formally give it yet. Gaining adminship is not supposed to be that big of a deal, and certainly it appears as though you are working hard on what is a tough subject, and not everybody can get everywhere at once. My only major concern is not the number of edits but the very short time that you've been here participating. Often (and I've done this myself... so I have some experience with this) an author will work very hard for a few weeks and then "burn out" real quick. An ordinary registered user can do quite a bit to block vandals, reverting pages, and even place the IP address or user name of the vandals in the Vandalism in Progress pages, where they are going to get some significant attention from the existing base of admins here. On the other hand, if there is some significant vandalism going on with these pages, they can be "protected", and this user given admin privileges to edit the protected content. My question is if the vandalism appears to be politically motivated or is it just random idiots who think they've found a dark corner of Wikibooks and just want to make mischief? There is a certain group of vandals who think Wikibooks is a cool place to hang out because vandalism tends to last a little bit longer here than on Wikipedia. We are getting better, and there are now enough admins to keep most of them in check now, but it is still a weaker project than Wikipedia. The issue of protecting the pages for this Wikibook is a seperate issue from giving you adminship, BTW, so let's not confuse the two issues. --Rob Horning 02:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I do agree with Rob that new writers can burn themselves out quickly, and that we need to worry that our contributers are spreading themselves out too thinly by gaining sysops for many wikiprojects. However, I see no reason why a contributer with long-term plans for their particular niche, and with a contribution history that is growing at a nice rate, should be denied adminships on the premise that they might burn out. I vote in Support here because we do need more admins, but we mostly need more admins with vision and determination. That, and it's "No Big Deal". --Whiteknight 19:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Solid edit history. - Aya T E C 15:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Done - Aya T E C 15:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!--Ђорђе Д. Божовић 17:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Voldemort ( talk | email | contribs )

Okay, I realize this might be premature, but I feel it is the right time to ask. Hopefully in the following statements, I can calm any reservations about having me as a sysop. I don't see any official template to set up this nom, so I feel I can best express myself in this way.

Reasons I want to become an Admin:

  • The main reason I would like to be an Admin is to be able to rollback vandalism more effectively and efficiently.
  • I am an active participant in VfD, and would like to be able to complete the deletion process.
  • There doesn't seem to be enough Admins to keep up with vandal blocking and RC Patrol.

Possible reasons to vote Oppose:

  • Relative short time here on Wikibooks (Since November 2, 2005).
  • Relative low edit count compared to other Admins. (Roughly 420 edits as of 22:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)).
  • A couple of heated debates with fellow editors over policy (specifically content policies).

Possible reasons to vote Support:

  • Although I have only been here a month and a half, I know Wikibook editing and policies, and am a strong proponent of updating and enforcing certain policies... see my user page for more info.
  • Admin tools would not allow me to enforce any policy. I wouldn't "abuse my powers". Remember, almost all Admin actions can be undone anyways.
  • Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal", and I don't see it as such either.
  • I am dedicated to Wikibooks and want to make this project as best as it can be.
  • I am helpful to other editors, and am generally here M-F for a great portion of the day (420 edits in less than a month and a half).
  • I take part in RC Patrol and the rollback button would be helpful.
  • My use of edit summaries is superb and really helps when doing RC Patrol. I encourage everyone else to make sure they use their edit summaries.

Please just don't look at my name, remember me from the textbook debate, and vote oppose. Take some time in my contributions. If you feel you must vote oppose, I will understand. You are entitled to vote the way you please. I won't go away crying if this is unsuccesful. Thank you for taking the time to read through all of this. Feel free to ask me any questions you please. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Votes

  • support LV is doing great job reverting vandals, he helped me many times. IMO we need people like LV - patrolling recent changes, reverting and blocking vandals, deleting unneccessary pages and generally doing the whole dirty job. I think LV is ready to become an sysop now. --Derbeth talk 22:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • support. you had me at hello. I have to admit, your credentials are much nicer then mine were when i asked for adminship, and on top of that, your little presentation here is certainly more impresive then mine was (mine was just like 1 paragraph). I think that wikibooks can only benefit from having more sysops in it's midst. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 22:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I was going to wait until January to nominate you, but I think you are pretty familiarized with Wikibooks and everything going on here to take on this job. Becoming an admin is really not that big of a deal, you just have to prove you won't become a vandal and abuse the admin privileges and have a desire to help make this a much better project. You have some strong opinions on some stuff here, and the best word of advise I can give is to simply be patient when you deal with other users. We also need active admins here, and participating in the RC Patrol is especially welcome. Admin privileges will allow you to take steps like blocking vandals early that you can't do otherwise. --Rob Horning 11:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - What Rob Horning said. Your previous experience on Wikipedia has translated well to Wikibooks. The advancements in policy you've orchestrated here are especially helpful. -Matt 19:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Cspurrier 19:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support This user has worked at Wikibooks:No personal attacks and Wikibooks:No legal threats, and participates in other debates on policy, so I have a better idea of what to expect. This user seems to be very interested in Wikibooks. However, I did wonder if this user had any experience with adminship on another MediaWiki. --Kernigh 05:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Krischik T 08:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Hey, I probably disagree the most with your opinions. But you know the difference between your opinion and the official policy, so I don't see it as a problem. --Dragontamer 05:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Done. Dysprosia 13:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artur Nowak ( talk | email | contribs )

22:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC) Reason: I started a book about Reaktor, now (I'm glad about that) new people started to add content, but some just copy texts from Reaktor User Forum - this should not happen. I want to be able to delete these pages

Questions

  • You're contributing only to this book, you don't have any editions in Wikibooks namespace, you don't vote, we even don't know if you know current policies. You have just had 4-month break from Wikibooks - it's not ok for a sysop. Are you sure you need sysop rights? You can always insert {{delete}} if you want a page to be deleted. Apart from this, you don't need other user rights - as you are not willing to patrol recent changes. Am I right? --Derbeth talk 23:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. No. For the reasons that derbeth described. you have, by my count, around 270 edits in the space of 1 year. Also, you seem to only contribute to a single book. Even though it is admirable that you would like to have more power to improve your book, it hardly seems reasonable to give sysop rights to every user with a pet project. This is not to say that edit counts or books influenced are the only metrics for determining sysop votes. However, you also arent very involved (at least not that i have seen) in policy discussions or votes, fighting vandalism, etc. If you do become more involved in the community, we will certainly have no problem voting to give you adminship. My advice is this: explore wikibooks, and see what all is here. Get involved in the policy discussions. See if you can add more to other books, on other bookshelves. If you prove that you understand and can execute policy throughout the entire site, you will have my vote. --Whiteknight TCE 03:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Having a 4 month Wikibreak is just fine as a sysop. Do not let that be a reason to stop somebody from becomming an admin. The willingness to expand beyond the single Wikibook, however, is a good reason to support becoming an admin. The #1 reason I would see for becoming an admin that would be useful for a single project is to edit protected pages and to protect/unprotect those pages, presumably in concert with a larger group of users where you are taking on a leadership role and changing content on protected pages with community concensus of those working on that Wikibook. In order for me to support this request for adminship, I need to see some more clear plan of what this user is going to try and accomplish with the additional options only available to an admin. Marking pages with the {{delete|<reason>}} tag is sufficient for removing content. You can even blank the page first except for this markup tag if you want to emphasis the point, and that is something an ordinary user can do without admin privileges. There are now enough admins on Wikibooks to clean up the speedy delete category, although we could use some more help in general and I don't want to discourage anybody from trying to become an admin. You also have to show some trustworthiness to prove that you won't vandalize other protected pages elsewhere on this project. IMHO 270 edits is plenty sufficient to become an admin if the user is willing to take on the general responsibility associated with being an admin. General project participation is beneficial to advocate becoming an admin, but it is not the sole criteria for acceptance. --Rob Horning 17:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Votes

  • Oppose - Artur Nowak should read Deletion policy. This user has good intentions, and I might support adminship for this user in the future, but I think that this user should become more familiar with Wikibooks first. I hope that this user continues to improve Wikibooks by working at Reaktor or other books. --Kernigh 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Let us just finish this issue. --Derbeth talk 01:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I gave some reasons why this user might be permitted to become an admin, and that user has neglected to come up with a "mission statement" as to what they intend to use the admin authority to accomplish. In addition, the last edit was on November 12th, and doesn't appear to be active in the policy discussions, even partially with just voting and demonstrating knowledge of Wikibooks policy. This is no prejudice against this user applying for adminship in the future, but at the moment I don't see him ready to take on the duties. --Rob Horning 06:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Rejected in consensus. --Derbeth talk 22:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NCurse, Dubaduba and Gubbubu

We requested for adminships in Hungarian Wikibooks. NCurse wanted to be an admin, I'm an admin now, but wanted to be a buerocrat. We have support (with no opposition). I translate the environment and help system now, but I need help, it is too much amd too slow for only one admin. Please a developer or steward enter in action (because our official buerocrat, Grin will be inactive now, probably for weeks). I must remark that we are respected admins in other projects (Dubaduba in huwiktionary, Ncurse in huwikiquote, me in huwikisource). It is enough to change my buerocrat flag, cause, in fact, I strongly would like to appoint the two new admins :-)). Thanx: Gubbubu 09:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but even if we could, we cannot do this. You have to find stewards to do this. Use meta:Requests for permissions. Good luck! --Derbeth talk 11:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragontamer ( talk | email | contribs )

Well, I had a speech with pros and cons typed up, and then IE messed up on me. So I'll keep it short. If you guys don't know me, then I probably shouldn't be an Admin anyway. Wikibooks is small enough for all admins to know each other right now.

I may be sticking to game guides right now, but I am willing to help out with vandals and so forth. I go through recent changes at least once in my "wikibooks routine", and use random module every now and then to check up on pages. Sysop rights would cut down my time a lot, especially with all these vandals in my video-game book/guide.

As far as why I'd like to be an admin... I like the one-click reverts that I can get (in combination with that IRC channel with the stuff in RC, it'd be nice). Banning seems a little too powerful to me :) But I'm sure I'd understand when to ban after a while.

Thanks for hearing me out. --Dragontamer 06:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO, if I can't convince 100% of you guys, I'm not to be trusted as an admin yet anyway. Like said before, this place is small enough right now that 1/2 people on a vote counts for a lot. So I'll withdraw my request, and I'll see if I can do anything in the next few months to change your opinion. Ick, it was in the lost post that was lost that had my worries about being premature :-/ (*kills IE*) --Dragontamer 02:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Votes (no more votes, user withdrew request)

  • Support - This wiki needs more admins to revert things. For example, look at the history of the Project:Community Portal... hidden WikiSpam stays at that page for hours. I wonder if Dragontamer has any experience being admin/sysop at another MediaWiki. (I have no such experience.) Experienced or not, you can start by using the quick-revert feature, and not worry about banning anyone until later. --Kernigh 04:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No, if I become a sysop here, this will be my first time as a sysop at any MediaWiki. --Dragontamer 14:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - You mention that you mostly work on game guides and after looking at your contribs that's basically all I see. I really don't see work anywhere else. I'm opposing this because as of now I think there's work to be had. Actually go around and make a significant effort with RC or something similar. You say you want to do it, so do it. Yes, it saves time to have admin rights but by what you've done now I don't see much of a time savings anyway. I don't really see any action and until I see more I oppose. -Matt 17:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - While he is very active in the game guides (and trying to help develop the gaming guide policies), I have seen his contributions elsewhere on Wikibooks as well. My only concern is a worry he may "burn out" from trying to do too much too soon, but this is certainly a user that can be trusted to make Wikibooks a better place, and has made meaningful contributions already that in general support the whole project. --Rob Horning 03:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Cspurrier 23:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think your request came too early. In fact, you haven't done much reverts and most of them are done in your own book. We don't need another admin who cares only about a single book. Even as an ordinary user you can still fight vandalism using "three-click-revert". Compare yourself to Lord Voldemort - don't you think you are not active enough to convince us you will be a good sysop? --Derbeth talk 01:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't you think it would be a bad precedent to set to compare nominees to other nominees? I would encourage all contributors here to base their judgment on the specific editor's contributions. I am not making any value judgment on Dragontamer, I'm just saying that comparing nominees can sometimes be like comparing apples and unicorns. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
No consensus to give sysop rights. --Derbeth talk 18:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jguk ( talk | email | contribs )

Although a relatively new Wikibookian, I have much experience with the MediaWiki software through more than 20,000 edits on wikipedia dating back to September 2004. Initially I was reluctant to put myself forward for sysop access rights so soon after joining a new project, but I have begun trying to bring more organisation into Wikibooks (see my contribution history), and this tends to end up leaving lots of useless redirects. At present, I have been nominating these for speedy deletion (having checked that all links to the page have been adjusted for). Sysop rights would allow me to do this instantly, which is why I am seeking sysop rights at this early stage. Of course, if I was unsure of anything, I would seek a second opinion. On Wikibooks I am developing a magnum opus, Taxation in the United Kingdom. I'd also hope to contribute to Wikijunior and I am currently working up a first page on Wikijunior Kings and Queens of England prior to nominating the proposed book to be added to the Wikijunior canon. Further evidence of my bona fides can be taken from my being appointed Treasurer of Wiki Educational Resources Limited, the company that will act as the UK Wikimedia chapter (see m:Wikimedia UK, and my contributions on wikipedia, which have included numerous featured articles and featured lists, as well as the first featured portal, Jguk 16:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I don't know, just two weeks on the project... I'm not fully convinced. --Derbeth talk 19:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree it's early, and if the view is come back in two month's time, I'll understand. I'm only asking now as I find that whilst trying to do some organising of WB's content, I'm creating redirects that should be deleted or finding other stuff that can clearly be deleting. I'm ok with just marking them up for speedy deletion, but it would be quicker and easier to do it myself, Jguk 19:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Votes

  • Support --Cspurrier 16:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This isn't a strong opposition, but i definately think you could stand to wait a little while before seeking higher access privledges. I was made into a sysop relatively early in my wikibooks career, so i don't think that there should be a large time requirement. I think what people want to see is some kind of indication that you are here to stay for a while, and if we make you an admin, that you won't get "burnt out", and stop contributing. We do need more admins, but we don't need to make people admins, and have them only work on one book, or to contribute for a month and leave forever. Prove to us that you will be here for a while, and I will definately vote for you next time. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 21:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
After reviewing his contributions, I'm inclined to change my vote. I will vote Support now, under the assumption that he is a member who is here to stay. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 14:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too new. Not enough experience around Wikibooks. To me, having a long list of accolades at other projects doesn't improve status here. It may be good to know in some cases, but in many others it just looks like fluff. We don't want "souvenir" admins. Spending more time here first will look better. -Matt 22:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Support - I hope he keeps with it. 1600 edits in less than a month is insane. Just take it at a decent pace so you don't get overwhelmed and leave the project. The main reason I'm changing my vote is because I think he will keep with it and provide a large amount of help with cleaning up a lot of the mess here. I wish I could do more of it myself. -Matt 04:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - I agree somewhat with the above statements. You just need to prove yourself a little more within Wikibooks, and show that you plan to stick around a little bit. You can still help with vandalism, and even the vandals aren't as active as they are on Wikipedia. Request this again in a couple of months, and I will likely vote to support you instead. --Rob Horning 16:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Jguk, you need the ability to delete pages. --Kernigh 06:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I changed my opinion, we need somebody to delete candidates for speedy deletion - they wait for deletion too long now. I don't think Jguk will overuse sysop powers. --Derbeth talk 10:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
IMHO this is not a reason (the speedy deletion candidate bin overflowing) sufficient to granting everybody admin status. I completely emptied the category several times this month myself, before the big bru-ha-ha over Wikimania content took up my time to have to work on stuff elsewhere on Wikibooks, or at least respond to the birrage of questions. Still, we could use a few more administrators here. --Rob Horning 13:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- John N. 20:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Made sysop. --Derbeth talk 20:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations for adminship

[edit] Perl (2/0)

Pearl is a great contributor to the English Wikipedia and is cool under fire. --mav 06:23, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I accept this nomination. I promise to use my powers only for good. (I am an admin and bureaucrat on the maori language wikipedia and have never abused my powers there.) Perl 12:49, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. mav
  2. Theresa knott

Comments:

  • comment I will be supporting pearl in a little while but I think we should be a bit cautious about sysopping people here based on their contributions to other wikis. As accounts are seperate,what's to stop a troll creating an account here with the name of a respected user on wikipedia? I'm not suggesting for a minute that perl is really someone else, but we should establish a policy now. Theresa knott 06:35, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I have edited my userpage on wikipedia [[2] to prove that I am the same Perl. Perl 22:51, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Good enough for me - I support Perl's nomination. Theresa knott 11:34, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User:Traroth (2/0)

Traroth seems like a good contributor from the French Wikipedia. Perl 22:11, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why not. I'm already admin and bureaucrat on fr:. It could be interesting. It doesn't seem to be a hell of a job here :-) Traroth 16:00, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Perl
  2. Dysprosia
User now a sysop. TUF-KAT

[edit] Mshonle ( talk | email | contribs )

I nominate Macneil Shonle for admin status. He's done a lot of good work on the Algorithms textbook. --Waxmop 02:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The user accecpted on their talk page. Gentgeen 22:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - SamE 03:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - Yeah totally, he's done good work Gkhan 01:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - Gentgeen 23:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is done. Dysprosia 10:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geocachernemesis ( talk | email | contribs )

This user has been helpful in reverting newbie tests, vandalism, and the ever-persistent Chinese spammers. It's about time that Geocachernemesis, a user since September 2004, is given the keys to the big mops and guns. Guanaco 03:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination Guanaco, I accept.:) I had noticed the amount of vandalism that had been getting through, and felt that someone needed to do something about it. I contribute mainly to Wikibooks, Wikipedia, and Wikimedia Commons, with 465, 418, and 343 edits respectively (1426 in total). Additionally, I've contributed significantly to the Cookbook, adding 42 of my own images. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 05:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • support: Somehow I thought Geocachernemesis was already an admin! MShonle 06:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose: He seems to have something personal against me, probably because I have disagreed with him on numerous occasions. A good admin (like MShonle for example, to note one who impresses me) can put aside even very large disagreements over wiki content. I'd rather not have an admin with a grudge against me. AlbertCahalan 14:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't have anything against you personally Albert. But, the reason that I (and probably the three others) didn't support your nomination for adminship is not because of stylistic differences. But, instead, because of the terse manner in which you have dealt with others in the past (you admit to this in your nomination below). I'm sure that we will support you if you continue to be courteous to others, as you have been recently. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 05:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Gets to the source of the problem before I do, and that says a lot. KelvSYC 01:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose: User reverted a correction without any knowledge of the language/topic. Unacceptable for an admin candidate. --messi 16:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) abstain: --messi 13:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I believe you're referring to his revert on German: Lesson 9, in which he changed "passt" to "passen". If you check the logs off the other edits user 62.180.31.25 made [3], you'll see that two were rather juvenile vandalism to the cookbook, and one to the main German page. This user also added something which looks ok to the programming languages page, but I think Geocachernemesis can be forgiven for assuming this user's edits to that page were spam/noob experiments, and especially forgiven because he just did a revert, not a willy-nilly edit. Kellen 17:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I think you don't understand me. This is not about a specific revert. I don't want any admin to just assume a user's edit is wrong without knowledge (of the topic) or consultation from others. Wikibooks.org has many users who watch over their articles. This just looks as if Geocachernemesis wants as many edits as possible for his/her candidacy. My opinion, my vote. --messi 17:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think there are a lot of assumptions that have to be made. I think Kellen brings up a good point that once an IP address loses its credibility the recent changes should be reverted. But you should try to assume good faith instead of jumping to the conclusion that Geocachernemesis is somehow on a mission to inflate edits; that is just not reflected in the reality of all the good Geocachernemesis has done for wikibooks. MShonle 18:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, Messi reverted that very same user! [4] (And, with good cause: they were a vandal.) So, tell me, how much would you trust someone who made anti-German jokes who also edited one of the pages? I probably would have reverted it myself. MShonle 23:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. Geocachernemesis does a good job and I don't think he's "on a mission", but he's a bit overzealous for my taste. He should have known better. I won't change my mind on this, but it's only one vote. --messi 00:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way Messi. But, I can't help but feel that you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I don't understand why you didn't bring your concerns up on my talk page first. The edits by 62.180.31.25 were mostly childish vandalism. So, obviously, all of their edits were now suspect. I decided to trust the first edit (because it made a significant contribution), but because the fifth edit was an anti-German slur, I decided to revert the second (minor) edit (it would have been a simple matter for a fluent German speaker to revert my change if I was mistaken). I could have, however, simply rolled back all of the changes by that user without even looking at the diffs, but I didn't.
I'm really surprised that nobody has complained about any of my reverts in the last month, up until now, because I have made quite a few. It's always a fine line between fighting vandalism and undoing good edits, and it's sometimes hard to tell, but I do make mistakes (because I'm only human). If I wanted to inflate my edits, I would have made spelling corrections and other trivial changes, finding and reverting vandalism is really very time consuming (look at the timing of my edits). Additionally, I would have updated my edit stats, above. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 02:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • support: Attentive to linkspam, vandals, and still doing textual edits on the Cookbook. Kellen 17:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support: Geocachernemesis has consistently contributed to the well-being and existance of many Wikibooks. He should be given access to the necessary tools to assist in his efforts. This is a tentative support as I have seen cases where newly-promoted admins run amok, but then again nothing much we can do short of getting Geocachernemesis to submit a psych analysis report.... ^_^

    Truth is, if we have more admins to keep up with the linkspammers and block them, perhaps our lives would be easier. Other than this, there's really nothing to stop us common users from doing a little bit of civic policing on our own. Lynx7725 05:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't have picked you as being one to have reservations about my adminship. You are the only one whom I advertised my adminship to directly. Thanks for the (tentative) vote of support Lynx7725. I wasn't intending to become an administrator for Wikibooks. But, as Guanaco nominated me, I though it would have been rude not to make a concerted effort to succeed.
As far as I can tell, being an administrator doesn't give you significantly more power than a regular user. You can immediately delete pages if they contain junk (and you don't have to wait ages for others to do it), that would be very useful on RC (recent changes) patrol. But, in other ways, being an administrator is a disadvantage, because your conduct is held to a higher standard than others'.
I agree that we do need to get more regular users involved with fighting spam than they currently are. I'm often surprised when a new registered user asks for an administrator to remove vandalism, possibly not understanding that they can easily do it for themselves (not you Lynx7725 ;). At the moment I'm virtually alone on RC patrol, and often find vandalism on the RC list that's over 12 hours old. It would be great to see more users take time away from their books, and run down the RC list for a few minutes now and then.
At the moment, I'm too busy to welcome new users. I'm too busy fixing their experiments. With a few more hands on board, I hope to spend more time on welcomes (that's far more rewarding). (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 06:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The reservation is not aimed at you specifically, it's just that a long time ago I had a bad experience with a over-ego'ed Sysop on a BBS. :)

Yes, Adminship looks to be more of a recognition than a true position of authority. The only major item is blocking (which is major). The ability to delete is actually not that major, since we can batch all the speedies together and wait for an admin to detele, and anything up for VfD is going to take this side of forever to resolve anyway. :) Lynx7725 07:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it would have been good if one of us was able to block Henry the 88th just before. I'm obviously not alone on RC patrol, because Lynx7725 made significant contributions today (along with a couple of other users).:) (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 08:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Can't believe there have been objections. Definitely a support. Geocachernemesis is one of our biggest weapons against vandalism as far as I can see. Serge 10:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: In fact I'd probably support anyone who isn't obviously a vandal. Yes, he may have made some mistakes, we all do, but he's always prepared to discuss things rationally, and admit that he can make mistakes. That's the only important characteristic an admin requires. Obviously being active might be considered another, but even though that may be true now, will it be the case in a year, 5 years, 50 years, etc.? Point is, you're never gonna know, so what does it matter?
The only thing I have against the guy is that the username he chose takes me too long to type. :-)
And just what the hell does it mean? 'Geo-' pertaining to the earth, 'cacher' someone who hides things away, and 'nemesis' an enemy of. So the guy is the enemy of people who like to hide the planet earth? What?!? ;-) - Aya T C 18:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
See www.geocaching.com. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 22:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: He may be a little bit zealous in a number of ways, but should it really be this hard to gain adminship? Generally the "edit wars" I've seen him involved with are mainly to protect Wikibooks, and he has done an outstanding job of most of the places I've seen his sig and name involved in page histories. Certainly he has a good grasp of Wikibooks policies and a desire to enforce them. As far as "running amok", I hope he doesn't go and ban all our IP addresses (I seriously doubt that would happen). There is some cleanup that only an admin can take care of, and it looks like he can help with some of that. --Rob Horning 08:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This user seems to have enough support, and since the only opposition was for 'personal reasons', I have granted sysop access to this user. This section will be archived one week from today. - Aya T C 00:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Makiaea ( talk | email | contribs )

Besides a good history of edits, this user pitched in to deal with User:Gumba gumba. If Makiaea had admin rights, he could have been far more effective. AlbertCahalan 21:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating me Albert! I'm a bit new right now so I don't mind waiting and enjoying my freedom from the responsibility of adminship :) I'm sure it'll probably be a while before people get to know me well, but I'll be happy to know when everyone does! warmest wishes, makiaea 18:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User is quite new, so I'm hesitant. Are you active on Wikipedia or Wiktionary or another Wikimedia project? TUF-KAT 16:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • comment - This user hasn't made an edit since April 22nd, and was really only active in April as well. I think this discussion has run its course and perhaps should be archived. --Rob Horning 19:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like this user feels that they are quite ready for this nomination, so I shall deny this request. I hope this user feels free to reapply when they've had a chance to make a few more edits. This section shall be archived approximately one week from today. - Aya T C 02:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AlbertCahalan ( talk | email | contribs )

In cleaning up this page, I decided that there was no consensus for Albert's adminship. It was a tough call, but I decided against it, but I am re-nominating him now to give another chance. FTR, the last time User:Mshonle objected with reasons that Albert defended himself against, and User:Node ue gave "strong support". meta:User:Mattrix also supported, but as he apparently doesn't have a Wikibooks account, I gave his vote little weight. User:Makiaea also supported, but admitted to being new and apparently voted only because of a high number of edits (I don't think this is appropriate) so I gave his vote little weight as well. Even if Makiaea and Mattrix's votes did count, I'm unsure if three supports and one (perhaps) substantive objection should be considered consensus.

My nomination is partly procedural, however I consider myself neutral, leaning towards support for the actual nomination. TUF-KAT 16:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • support. I do think that a high number of non-vandal edits is a good reason to grant admin rights, partly because it indicates someone who cares about wikibooks content and partly because frequent contributers often struggle with being unable to move pages over trivial stubs and edited redirects. Also, given the currently severe vandalism and spamming problems, the adminship standard should be set fairly low until there are enough admins to watch over wikibooks 24 hours a day. AlbertCahalan 17:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • support: Too many vandals, I say we need someone like Albert on board. MShonle 03:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) hold (not an oppose: just a placeholder for either an oppose or an abstain). I'll retract my oppose vote if I could be reassured that Albert would not become an "anti-deletionist". If we allowed every insane edit and article to go through simply because "people delete too much" then wikibooks would become mush. Part of the wikispirit is that there is editorial guidance and that, when people vote and discuss items for deletion, typically good information will come through and thus most votes are well-informed. MShonle 03:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    (Further, what's the business with strong support and leaning support? Is this eBay, where someone being an A++++++++ seller means more than being an A++++ seller?)
  • 83.92% support ;): I do have an account here (User:Mattrix), it's just that my userpage is only on meta. -- mattrix 21:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • support: I support Albert's adminship. He shows genuine concern about Wikibooks and would make a good admin in my opinion. Reubenbarton 19:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose for many reasons, including this dif. [5] Degrading the work of others, even if they are in need of work and might be copyright violations, are not qualities I look for in an admin. Gentgeen 08:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    I truly do think many of the "Native American" recipes are fake. This is understandable, actually. How do I put this... there are some who desire to have a day of cooking like Native Americans. Problem is, they have no clue how to do so and would be unable to get appropriate ingredients anyway. So they improvise, radically. The first clue should be that tribes are not mentioned. They're not all identical you know. But hey, I'm willing to accept that I may be wrong. Perhaps a Native American would like to step forward and tell me that these are both really used and not part of generic USA cuisine. In any case, I don't see how my opinion on the categorization of these recipes has any relation to anything else. It's not as if I'd delete such a page w/o a VfD or block the author. AlbertCahalan 14:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    Hmm. Putting a dispariging comment on the page itself hardly seems like a very constructive way to deal with it. -- mattrix 18:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    I didn't see the comment as being all that disparaging at the time, but I can see now that it was a bit tactless. I will try to find a more polite way to make the point. I was in a rather bad mood, partly from the mess, and partly because the page is non-historical. If the page is going to be about modern people of a particular race, well, that's racist. (imagine a Cookbook:White cuisine page if you don't see the point) I'd like to point out that the quality of edits surely follows a bell curve; after well over 1500 edits I'm sure to have some rotten ones. The bell curve goes out a good long ways in both directions. AlbertCahalan 21:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    Interesting. He posts a message in my talk page beginning with "The cookbook is not a place for you to violate copyright. Hire a lawyer if you need legal advice..." He does go on to provide some helpful advice, but notice that he never even mentions which recipe he's talking about. I had to figure out on my own that it's this one: Cookbook:Wild_Rice_Blueberry_Dessert. Although by looking at the history page it appears that I'm responsible for the recipe being here, I merely wikified it over from Native American cuisine. That "Unsorted Mess" that Albert refers to has been around for some time, I was simply trying to help clean it up. Perhaps I should have followed my suspicions and checked for violations, though. PurplePieman 19:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    Your name was on it. You did not credit the original source, as the GFDL requires. Sorry I forgot to mention which recipe. AlbertCahalan 21:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    As I said, my name was on it, because I moved it. In the future, I'll make sure to comment that in the history. PurplePieman 20:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose on the grounds that, in the short time I have dealt with him, he seems to be very rude, unhelpful, and (perhaps worst of all) unwilling to let his writings be modified. (See the edit wars between us on Alcoholic Drink ([[Talk:Cookbook:Alcoholic Drink|Talk]]) and Bonito Flakes.) I think that he should attempt to get more experience working with the community and practicing diplomacy before trying to become an admin. PurplePieman 19:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I'll second the idea that he doesn't like modifications to his own work. I recently changed the placenta article just to make it clear that this questionable activity has nothing to do with vegetarians, as he claimed. I voted to have the page deleted, but at least if the page is going to remain it doesn't have to be insulting and offensive. Anyway, I hope those changes (which are NPOV and reasonable) remain put, otherwise I'll think he's quite unreasonable. MShonle 20:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how the comment below went in w/o being an edit collision with MShonle's comment, but anyway... I noticed the Cookbook:Placenta change, and decided not to revert. I have half a mind to query PETA on the issue though; if PETA says that human placenta is OK then I hope you will concede that it is. AlbertCahalan 21:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
It takes 2 to have an edit war. As anyone can see, I have been making an effort to be balanced on the Alcoholic Drink page. I added the note at the top specifically to address your NPOV concerns; I would appreciate if you would acknowledge that effort by removing the NPOV dispute notice. As for the bonito flakes, I put 5 URLs on your talk page as proof that bonito is commonly considered to be a type of tuna. Additionally, to address your concerns I noted that some countries do not allow bonito to be marketed as tuna. If I use Google to search for "bonito tuna" (no quotes), the first page of hits is all about bonito being a tuna. AlbertCahalan 21:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose reluctantly, because obviously Albert has done a lot of good work, and we need more anti-vandals. But I have to agree with other people that his attitude comes across as rude, dominating and uncooperative: dangerous qualities in an admin. Sorry, Albert, perhaps this is not your intention but it's how you seem. Redlentil 07:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm really not any of those things in person. I picked up a rather forceful arguing style from the linux-kernel mailing list. There, subtle and tactful words will be misunderstood by the many people who do not natively speak English. (probably my sentence structure is too complex though) Verbosity will be ignored, as it must be in such a high-traffic environment. It's a confrontational prove-me-wrong sort of environment. While harsh, this style gets things done fast. Having myself been on the receiving end more than a few times, I know it can be painful. Hopefully you can believe me when I say that I wouldn't be abusing admin powers (edit blocks I guess) to cause you trouble. I haven't done anything bad with privileges elsewhere, including as procps maintainer and as a person with CVS commit access to Tux Paint. AlbertCahalan 19:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose Albert is a tireless and energetic editor and defender against vandalism. But, I have to agree with Redlentil. Cheers, Donovan. 09:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Just one note here that "Adminship shouldn't be a big deal." I think Albert could really help out more than he is already if he were given the privileges to block and rollback changes. (For some IP addresses the quicker they can be blocked the less work for everyone else.) Also, Albert's powers would be kept in check by the other Admins, so concerns about abuse of powers would be limited to a one time deal: after one major abuse (by any Admin) they can be de-Admined. MShonle 23:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • support Because it looks like there will not be another vote for Albert's adminship, and now that he has started contributing again, I elect to change my vote now. I would have been happier to see him contributing for a bit longer though. But, I suppose that it's not that important, because we will have a couple of active admins to make sure that he doesn't bite the newcomers.;) Geo.T 23:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Geo (or should I call you Donovan?). I think as the number of admins increases, we'll have far less to worry about. With myself, yourself, and soon Albert and Garrett, as new admins, we should be able to ensure that things run more smoothly. I felt it a bit harsh to start yet another vote for Albert, since, if you check the /Archive, you'll notice he's had a bit of a bad rap in this department already. He may be somewhat terse in his comments to other users, but I guess by spending less time on each, he can get a lot more done. I'm hoping we can all put our petty disputes behind us, and work together in the best interests of the site. - Aya T C 01:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Donovan is fine (it's my name), but it may confuse the others, because I no longer include it in my signature. I hope that we don't get another user wanting to be called Geo, because I'm using Geo. as my signature (short for Geocachernemesis). I will continue to use Geocachernemesis in my signature on other Wikimedia projects, however.
      • It's unfortunate that Albert didn't feel that he could support my adminship. But, I offer him this olive branch, in the the hope that it will serve the best interests of the Wikibooks community. Geo.T 01:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay. I'll stick to 'Geo'. It's less letters to type anyway. :) I saw it more like you and Albert had fallen out over something a bit petty, and then both boycotted each other's votes in RFA. In my opinion, since you both have good edit histories, you should both be admin'd. It really is 'no big deal'. There's nothing you can do that can't be undone. - Aya T C 00:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
          • "That can't be undone" -- except for deleting images, that is? :-) MShonle 01:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Shhh. It was going so well until that comment. ;-) - Aya T C 03:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • support despite his rough-and-tumble style and questionable taste in food, Albert is definitely committed to the Cookbook project and I have found his responses to be more measured in the last month or two (especially when he made a couple suggestions that I should seek consensus instead of going balls to the wall as I was prepared to do). He has also done good work with vandals. Kellen 07:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • comment This user hasn't made an edit since June 15th, so I'm questioning if it would be wise to make him an admin. I hope that the wait for adminship wasn't considered a sign of apathy from anybody here on Wikibooks and discouraged him. With almost 3000 edits, he certainly has been very active by any criteria, particularly with the cookbook. Still, I would like to see an admin that would be active than filling the ranks of admins with another inactive admin. --Rob Horning 19:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I actually heard from Albert today that he's been moving (I sent him an email, wondering about his absense). So, lets give him some more time. None of us are doing this as a full time job. MShonle 19:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This nomination for adminship has been up for over three months, and that's far too long. I propose that we declare this one closed, and allow a new nomination to occur (MShonle may like to do the honours). We should try to limit the voting to no more than two weeks this time. I think that would be advantageous for Albert's chances, because we won't have all of this extra baggage that has accumulated over the months, and people may be more willing to vote differently this time around. Before I lend my support to his adminship, I would like to see Albert contributing again, however. Geo.T 02:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. I had put this one off for a while, since Albert had seemed to have vanished, but, as you can see from his 'contribs', he has returned recently. A few comments:

  • Regarding the diff posted by Gentgeen, the revisions have long since been deleted as confimed copyvios. I have checked the diff against the deleted revisions, and I do not find his comments to be in any way offensive, but rather the kind of comments of a user who is prepared to speak his mind, rather than just be another 'yes-man'. Personally I respect this sort of attitude, and am leaning towards discounting a vote based on such flaky reasoning, especially considering his edit correctly pointed out that the page was a copyvio.
  • Regarding the alleged edit wars and arguments with PurplePieman, I consider these academic and philosophical discussions, rather than heated flamewars - the sort of 'arguments' which would occur between any two people whose definitions of such concepts differ slightly. In my opinion, this should not be grounds to deny adminship.
  • Regarding the other oppositions by Redlentil and Geocachernemesis, they largely opposed on the grounds of oppositions of existing people, which don't really deserve to be considered oppositions in their own right, especially as Geocachernemesis seems to imply that he would support Albert, should he become a regular editor again.
  • My own opinion is that more admins is always a 'good thing (tm)', and should be 'no big deal'. Should Albert subsequently abuse his powers, he can be easily demoted.

Consequently I am prepared to grant admin permissions to this user, assuming he still wants them. To Albert, if this is the case, please let me know by posting a reply here, and I shall make it so. - Aya T C 18:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

So, why even have voting at all, if you can just dismiss opposition? --- PurplePieman 00:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Good question. We need to be careful just doing things on a vote-count basis, as it may encourage sock-puppetry, cliques, and sheepy voting. The other problem is with vote turnout. It would seem apparent that anyone who's had a petty squabble with another user will turn up to vote against them, whereas the majority of users, who have probably unwittingly benefitted from someone with such an extensive edit history, won't bother. This leaves the results statistically disproportiate. I wonder if this page was better advertised in such a way as to encourage more users to vote, this might prove more successful, but bear in mind many votes for elections in the real world suffer from similar turnout problems.
The alternative (like VFDs) is to base the decision on the reasoning of people's votes rather than the actual votes themselves. Wikipedia seems to base it mostly on length of time spent on the site, and number of edits made. Perhaps you might suggest an alternative means of determining who should get admin'd and who should not? I am always prepared to consider sound reasoning. - Aya T C 02:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm still interested. Thanks. AlbertCahalan 02:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Done - Aya T C 05:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Horning ( talk | email | contribs )

I'm nominating Rob because I still feel as if we could use more admins, and Rob is a tireless editor who seems to have the best interests of this project at heart. I was kinda hoping he'd nominate himself, since I don't like to put any pressure on users to become admins. It's a lot of extra work, and you tend to get more abuse from other users. Before we start voting, what say you, Rob? - Aya T C 03:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

To be honest here, there is plenty of work to be done that doesn't need admin access, so I do want people to know that admin access is not required in order to help out with Wikibooks. I also wanted to let the politcal issues calm down quite a bit before I "threw my hat into the ring", particularly in regards to Wikiversity and the Muggle's Guide to Harry Potter before I tried for the nomination. I'm also working on another project that will impact Wikibooks in a significant manner, and I hope that my being an admin won't affect anyone's feelings on this project (I'll do a formal announcement soon on both the Textbook-l and Staff Lounge... I'm just trying to get the details down first). Nonetheless, I do accept this nomination, and there is a need to have some more active admins on Wikibooks, as it looks like this project is finally starting to take off on its own. I hope I can help out in any way. --Rob Horning 11:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Despite the cryptic acceptance statement.;) Geo.T 12:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC) Robert has e-mailed me an explanation of his proposed project, it has no bearing on my support for his nomination for adminship. Geo.T 03:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Again, my reasons here are similar for those for supporting Garrett. The users who can be bothered to find the cruft and mark it for speedy may as well delete it themselves to save other admins the hassle of processing the speedy list. Don't worry too much about the political implications, since, although you will have access to administrative tools, you are still a user, and your opinions should be valued only as much as they were before. Just make sure you are aware of WB:PAG. - Aya T E C 15:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Question - Rob: what are your feelings about Wikiversity and HP specifically? And can you give us clues as to what this big impacting project is? MShonle 21:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
My feelings about the HP VfD are that it was a premature discussion, and there have been changes made in Wikibooks:Deletion policy that had they been in place with the Harry Potter discussion, it would never have happened in the first place. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and see where their project is going to go. I am pissed at myself for not noticing that the VfD was started by what could be called a sock puppet... or a social vandal that is close to as bad if not worse than the AP vandal we have dealt with. I'll be more vigilant next time for a similar injustice. As far as Wikiversity is concerned, my opinion is very clear on the VfD discussion. I think it should go, but I also think that it should be started on its own server and given a chance to become a Wikimedia sister project. That may take a month or two, and Foundation policy is going to require an interest poll to see that this take place. I'm going to make a splash on this one, and force Wikiversity to go through the formal process of becoming a major Wikimedia project. If it takes my leadership to do that, so be it. In general, I think Wikibooks needs to be cool and slow on any major changes, and this patients is going to be required with Wikiversity in particular.

As far as the new project is concerned that I'm working on, it will involve money changing hands between people and Wikibooks authors, which I know if it is done wrong will piss off a whole bunch of people here. I'll try to give you some details if you are interested through private e-mail, and if you have read my posts elsewhere on Wikimedia projects (including Wikibooks) you may be able to figure out what I'm going to do... I'm just not ready for a formal announcement yet. Sorry about being so cryptic, but I don't want to piss anybody off, but I might anyway. I am also trying to find an appropriate forum to discuss the whole thing, but it will involve Wikibooks authors directly. --Rob Horning 00:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do email me (via WB) about this other project. Perhaps I can lend you advice to avoid any pissing off of anyone. :-) MShonle 03:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wholeheartedly Support - not an admin already?! Scandalous. Definitely one of those "no big deal" promotions. And I'm sure you'll find those extra clicky things will come in handy anyway. :) GarrettTalk 03:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I've got warm fuzzies about this one. MShonle 03:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Kellen T 04:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Serge 07:13, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Done - Aya T E C 16:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle G ( talk | email | contribs )

I'm nominating Uncle G because he has proven himself to be an avid supporter of new ideas here on Wikibooks and has a very through understanding of policies both here at Wikibooks and elsewhere on other Wikimedia projects. By looking at his list of contributions, he has also been very active in a wide number of areas on Wikibooks, and has made numerous positive contribution. I have not agreed with him on some issues, but his replies have always been well versed and based on solid principles and concepts, even when I thought he was wrong. I don't expect him to be 100% active in administrative duties, but we certainly can use some more administrators here on Wikibooks, and this is one person who I would not object to at all becoming an adminstrator. I hope you accept this nomination. --Rob Horning 10:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • My reply is the same as it was at Wiktionary, Wikinews, and Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, what are important are whether you (plural) think that I can be trusted with the abilities to delete/undelete/protect/unprotect articles and block/unblock users; and whether giving me those tools will benefit the project. I haven't nominated myself anywhere, but I have accepted where nominated. In addition to my edit history here, you may also consider whether you think that that trust would be well placed by looking at my history of wielding (and indeed not wielding) administrator tools on the aforementioned three projects. As I said the very first time at Wiktionary, much of what I do doesn't involve the need for administrator tools, although I add to that from experience since then that the ability to actually block Ass Pus straightaway and then roll back efficiently has proven to be handy. Uncle G 03:26:26, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
  • Support - I think that making Uncle G and administrator would be good for Wikibooks. Geo.T 04:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- From what I've seen of Uncle G I can be sure that we can trust him with our little book project we have going here. :-) MShonle 19:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Kellen T 18:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Done - Aya T E C 15:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Krischik ( talk | email | contribs )

I think we need more admins and Krischik is a good candidate for this function. Krischik is currently biggest contributor to Wikibooks [6], he spent more than a year on the project. He fights vandalism and helps with organising Wikibooks. After interviewing him I think he will be able to cope with admin tasks. --Derbeth talk 18:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  • accept - If I understand the rules correct I have to accept the nomination - so here it is. --Krischik T 07:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. This user has my vote. Recent posts by jimbo suggest (where they don't say blatantly) that wikibooks needs to have more admins, and more active admins to help keep things under control. Also, he says that (and i whole-heartedly agree) wikibooks needs to become more "serious", and it needs to strip away the fat and the nonsense that has accumulated over time. This new period of seriousness requires admins who are active, willing to help, and who have a good understanding of wikibooks. I think Krischik can do the job. --Whiteknight TCE 13:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. I know him from the Ada Programming book. From his work in this book and in Wikibooks in general, I think he would be a good administrator. ManuelGR 19:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support He has done a great job so far, time to be given adminship :) --Cspurrier 15:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Gentgeen 09:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, definitely. GarrettTalk 19:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. No big deal. Sysop him already. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Done. Godspeed ;) Dysprosia 01:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Kernigh ( talk | email | contribs )

I'm surprised he isn't one already. Throughout all the pages I watch, he seems to be one of the most active users around. Comments are well thought out and the benefits of sysop status seem like they would be quite useful with all this action around Wikibooks. -Matt 00:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Accepted nomination - Actually, I was planning to request adminship here soon. The two sysop abilities that I am most interested in are the ability to delete pages, and the ability to view the edit histories of recently-deleted pages. (The latter was available to all users until the devs turned it off.) I am aware that sysops have other abilities, like page protection and one-click reverts, and possibly others which I forgot. At Wikibooks, I tend to encounter useless garbage pages which I would like to be able to delete.
I do not have sysop status at any MediaWiki except for Lollerpedia, which contains the former Wikibooks Jokebook. However, because it is a small wiki, I have used that status only to delete two redirects after I reverted my own misspelled page move.
In the past, I sometimes used {{delete}} too aggressively. In particular, I would have already deleted Overcoming Procrastination, which as of now is marked {{vfd}}, and I would have deleted subpages of Introduction to Sociology that only require cleanup. Regardless of whether I become sysop here, I expect to start using tactics that other sysops use, such as marking pages {{vfd}} or contacting the user that made the page. However, if I become sysop then I will delete both garbage and transwikied pages. --Kernigh 17:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Votes

  • --Dragontamer
  • support --Derbeth talk 08:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support You are doing an excellent job with the cleanup crew as it is. I think this is a reasonable request, and I think he will "mature" with some experience to be reasonable. --Rob Horning 15:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. No big deal, and this is a trusted user. --LV (Dark Mark) 06:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Krischik T 13:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Oops, I forgot I hadnt' voted to support this yet. --JMRyan 18:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Cspurrier 18:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Made a sysop --Derbeth talk 02:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Kernigh has done tremendous job for Wikibooks cleanup and I even suggested him to apply for adminship few days ago. Normally I would be the first to vote for him, but his eagerness in deleting pages can be dangerous. We don't have to hurry with deleting pages as servers have lots of space, and sysops should be careful not to remove useful pages. From my own experience I know that many orphaned pages that can be thought "garbage" can become useful if, instead of deleting them, you check author's contributions and try to match the page to existing book. You could easily delete unused images when actually they might be useful at Commons. Similarly, if you delete NowCommons images or transwikied pages it may occur that copies don't have information about original authors.
Before I add my vote for Kernigh, I would like to hear that he will use delete function with consideration and responsibility. --Derbeth talk 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The pages that I am eager to delete are garbage pages with no meaningful content that cannot be reverted to a useful version. I am not eager to delete any images, because those deletions are permanent. I am aware about the need for to leave edit histories on transwikied pages - see for example MetaWikipedia:Talk:Transwiki:Wikimania05/Index. (I made an exception for at Wikisource:Talk:The Elements of Style; the text was public domain so I credited the Wikibookian who wikified it but I did not copy the edit histories.)
As recently as January 2006, I interpreted WB:DP and WB:WIW together to allow for speedy deletion of copies of Wikipedia articles, and I was eager to delete such articles. I am now less eager to delete those because their deletion requires more "consideration and responsibility", and because other users have removed my {{delete}} tags from them. I now prefer to be "marking pages {{vfd}} or contacting the user that made the page" or otherwise starting a discussion in such case. --Kernigh 02:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for bureaucratship

[edit] Aya ( talk | email | contribs )

See: m:Requests_for_permissions#Admin for Wikibooks for the origins of this request.

To sum up, there are many great candidates for adminship, who have been sitting in this RFA page for too long, some of whom have pulled out as a consequence, which is a great shame. As I also mentioned in my Critique of Wikibooks, these need to get processed more quickly, due to the ephemeral nature of wiki communities, or we'll soon be left with a wiki with no-one to clean up all the mess that vandals and the like leave behind. As Jimbo himself is alleged to have said, becoming an administrator should be "no big deal", so I feel we should be more trusting, and admin people sooner (unless there are any obvious reasons to the contrary, but a quick scan of a user's edit history should suffice). Admin permissions can always be taken away if people abuse their powers. At the end of the day, if you can't trust your fellow wiki-editors, then what's the point of even being here?

See: m:User:Aya for personal information about myself.

See: User talk:Aya (or click the 'T' in my sig) if you wish to talk to me directly.

See: Special:Contributions/Aya (or click the 'C' in my sig) for my edits on this wiki (approx 1200 in the last six weeks).

Thankyou for your time. - Aya T C 19:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Support -- What ever can help the process of getting more admins the better. :-) MShonle 20:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Aya seems to have the best interests of Wikibooks in mind. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 00:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Aya is one of the most influential of Wikibookians and has contributed greatly to the project with enthusiasm and intelligence. Go for it :) Serge 10:04, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, clearing backlogs is always an important task. Backlogs of deletions is bad enough, but of future admins?! Gah. At least the page admits it, "Be patient, because this could take months.". We should remove that line when your job is official, as it (and the current backlog) no doubt put many off if they consider applying. GarrettTalk 11:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Aya has been a very considerate of particularly the new Wikibookians on here, has done an outstanding job of helping out at the Staff Lounge, and in general has kept a level head when the rest of us are a little hot under the collar. Ditto to everything above. --Rob Horning 04:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to all supporters. This has now been done (just in time to block the latest ass pus attack). I've just discovered that, although I can make a sysop very easily, I don't seem to be able to remove one. This may cause a problem with my previous suggestion of sysop'ing people more quickly, since I can't remove them if they misbehave. I've made the appropriate noises on m:Requests_for_permissions#Admin for Wikibooks to get a response on this. I shall refrain from archiving this section until this is resolved. - Aya T C 00:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that before asking for a status, it would be interesting to get informed on what you can precisely do with that status :) As a bureaucrat, you appear to me very little informed. - Anthere 07:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
To be fair, the first thing I did upon getting the flag, was to find a page with information about what I should and shouldn't do. I tried looking through m:Help:Contents, but couldn't find anything obvious. A pointer to the appropriate page would be appreciated. - Aya T C 19:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
So, here are three informations
  • when a status needs to be given or removed that a bureaucrat can not (or when the bureaucrat is not around), the right place to go is m:Requests for permissions.
  • in any cases, the decision must be made HERE, and not on meta. So, for example, for any removal of sysop status, it must first be voted here by the whole community, then requested on meta. It should not be Aya lone decision to do so, but your collective decision
  • a bureaucrat can not remove a status, only a steward can. So any removal of sysop status will only be done after 1) agreement of the community here and 2) request on meta, to a steward. No noise will change that. So best to name trusted people sysops.
Cheers
Anthere 07:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I guess what I originially figured was that with such vague policy about when to sysop people as we have right now, that if I choose to sysop someone, I am implicitly taking on the responsibility for their actions, and thus should de-sysop them if they misbehave. It now seems this was not the intented use. I was also unaware that a bureaucrat can create other bureaucrats. I shall make an effort to re-write this page to make it clearer as to how this all works. Pah. I knew I should've read the source code first, but I often find PHP source difficult to read, since it's generally embedded in a whole bunch of HTML, and I'm certain bureucrats are not required to read the source code.
Anyways. I consider the matter closed, so I shall archive this section one week from today. - Aya T C 19:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi. You are not responsible, because you do not make the decision to sysop people yourself. The community makes this decision and you are only a tool applying the decision of the community. So, the community is globally responsible of a bad decision in sysoping someone, and the community must decide collectively to revert such a decision. Wish you good luck. Anthere

[edit] Nominations for bureaucratship

[edit] User:Dysprosia

I'm nominating Dysprosia for bureacratship, as the current wiki vacation by TUF-KAT has left the english wikibooks without any bureacrats, which is probibly a bad thing. Gentgeen 04:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
He's back now, but it still might be useful if I helped share the load of the bureaucratship duties for Wikibooks... Dysprosia
Greetings and salutations wikibookians! I support. TUF-KAT 18:34, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
User now a bureaucrat. TUF-KAT

[edit] Derbeth ( talk | email | contribs )

Since Aya has gone onto a Wikibreak and we are currently without an active Bureacrat, I'd like to nominate Derbeth to take over this job. Besides, we could use a couple more bureaucrats here as well on Wikibooks with the expanding number of admins and the general growth of Wikibooks.

Derbeth has been doing an outstanding job of patrolling vandalism, and in addition has been staying politically neutral on many internal issues for Wikibooks. With his already outstanding service as an administrator, I'd like to give him the additional responsibilities and privileges that come with being a bureaucrat (as well as to clean up the above list of nominiations). The additional responsibilities really are pretty minor, but it would be nice to keep some active bureacrats going on Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 16:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I never wanted to be a bureaucrat, even when I became a sysop. But as I can see that we are in need of bureaucrats and people here are giving me such support, I won't oppose. I don't have time to track every policy discussion and I am not the one who knows solutions to our problems, but I think I am able to cope with strictly bureaucratic tasks. --Derbeth talk 01:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems dedicated to the project. Important to have at least one active BCrat here. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Dont we have to wait for Derbeth to accept first? Whatever :) I Support, because he catches so many vandalisms. --Dragontamer 17:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. - as soon as he accept the nomination ;-) --Krischik T 12:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Derbeth has not accepted the nomination yet, so I will not vote because these votes might not be counted. However, Derbeth often reverts bad changes to pages and has several entries in the Special:Log for temporary blocks against IP addresses. This user is very active in protecting Wikibooks from vandals. --Kernigh 22:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Lol, then I'll vote after he accepts as well :) --Dragontamer 23:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Support --Kernigh 20:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. --Cspurrier 23:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Diversity of Bureaus is also important. --MShonle 01:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - several active b'crats is important for the project, and Derbeth is the right choice. Gentgeen 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I didn't want to vote until Derbeth accepted the nomination, although i admit that i could hardly wait for him to reply. We need more b'crats desperately, and i can't think of a name i've seen more often in the recent changes list fighting vandals and such. Derbeth is an excellent choice for the position, and i only hope it doesnt bring him too much stress! --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 04:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support As qualified or more as anyone else here. --JMRyan 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Someone has to do it. (I was tempted to vote against just to get some debate going :-) --kwhitefoot 10:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per below. Guanaco 03:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Neutral. I don't think Derbeth would abuse bureaucrat powers, but his use of blocking powers is suspect. Guanaco 02:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Support. I believe the blocking issue has been cleared up. Guanaco 02:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I have just been made bureaucrat. --Derbeth talk 22:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for bot status

[edit] tsca.bot ( talk | email | contribs )

We have plenty of work with books that don't conform naming policy. Sometimes such books are pretty large, so renaming all of their chapters takes a long time.

I think most part of such work should be done by bots and only small part by humans. Now it is opposite - nearly all renaming tasks are done by users. I know a bot which I think could help us. It is made by User:tsca, admin or bureaucrat on many projects. His bot has been successfully used at Polish Wikipedia and, occasionally, at Polish Wikibooks. The bot is stable and can perform tasks we need: add pseudo-namespace (like renaming Vodka to Bartending:Vodka), change letters, change colons to slashes etc. It also automatically fixes all links pointing to old page titles. tsca is often online, so he would complete tasks we will give him in short time. You can see bot contributions: Commons, pl.books.

I would like to hear you opinion about such bot. Before I can subit Request for permissions at Meta for this bot, I need to gain support from the community. --Derbeth talk 23:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: I started here request for bot status. I encourage you to vote for this bot. Current polices don't allow focing naming convention without authors' agreement. This bot will be used only on request of authors of a book. --Derbeth talk 11:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Votes

  • Support --Derbeth talk 11:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with the above restriction on the need that authors' concensus is obtained first. --Rob Horning 14:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Like I said below. -Matt 23:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I didn't vote for this yet? --Dragontamer 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Krischik T 06:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Kernigh 03:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --JMRyan 20:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 18:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Request sent to meta. --Derbeth talk 20:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
tsca.bot has bot status since now. --Derbeth talk 22:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Heck yeah. We need to get naming policy upto date by actually having all our books follow naming policy! --Dragontamer 00:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Since it apparently works, yes. GarrettTalk 01:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW, the reason we have to be careful about 'bots is that while they can do a great amount of work and help out, they can also screw things up in a way that would make you just cry. Moving pages is one of those areas that in particular is hard to revert... or at least can make a huge mess of things. Other things to consider as well when working on a 'bot is to make sure that you have it throttled so that it doesn't overload the server. In other words, make sure you got a delay loop or some timer involved that just does a slow crawl through the pages and doesn't try to do everything all at once. One page move every 10 seconds or perhaps a slightly longer delay, for example. If you try to run the 'bot as fast as HTTP responses come in, it might crash the server and perhaps cause other problems as well.
If this 'bot is going to be used, try to get concensus on the particular Wikibook project itself at least among participants, and try to come up with the conventions that you are going to use within that Wikibook. We shouldn't be forcing all of the Wikibooks to conform and make changes like this project-wide... at least yet. As long as the 'bot is only working on just one or two Wikibooks at a time and the group working on that Wikibook is making a request to use the 'bot, I support it being used here. --Rob Horning 02:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
My answers to Rob: this bot has proven its stability. It is often used on Polish Wikipedia, one of biggest of all. Today I'm only thinking of renaming books on request of its contributors, I haven't said anything about massive renaming of all books. tsca is not interested Wikibooks so he will do only things we ask him to do. --Derbeth talk 09:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we should get WB:NP to be enforced first. People need to go over there and vote. In my opinion it's ready to be enforced. As far as what Rob Horning said, most of it I agree with besides asking permission to rename the books. The naming policy should be enforced and the books need to abide by it. The community's opinion of the policy should be held over several users' preferences on how they want to write a book. -Matt 05:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
In this case I hope we can agree to disagree on this point. I don't think a 'bot that goes through all of Wikibooks is going to be helpful, and besides, the naming policy gives several conventions that can be used for a book as well that fits within the guidelines. There is no specific policy that says it has to be done in a certain manner. Obvious violations of naming policy should be fixed, but I don't know of any specific Wikibook where this is a serious problem that involves more than a dozen pages. Perhaps we should be enlightened. I do know that if somebody ran a bot on one of the Wikibooks I focus on and changed conventions without my input, I would be quite upset. It is for that reason I am emphasizing that you get the participants of the specific Wikibook involved and not make this a project wide bot changing everything. The whole point of the naming policy is to try and keep related book modules together through a consistant naming schema. WB:NP is mainly a guideline in this case and not necessarily a policy that could be enforced. What should be enforced policy is that some sort of naming system be used in each Wikibook. --Rob Horning 13:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we actually are in agreement on most of the issue. I may have misunderstood what you were previously saying regarding permission. I don't think permission is needed for things such as making a large book use slash convention. What I do think permission should be asked for (and how I agree with you more now) is the style in which the naming convention should be used. I would only want to make the basics mandatory such as needing to use slash convention for book pages (I also really dislike pseudonamespaces and would love for the Programming books to be reworked). The way hierarchies of pages are organized is indeed an issue for the book writers to discuss. In a way I think I retract my last comment then because in order to enforce slash convention you need to know how the page hierarchy of the book works first and that requires discussion before any bot use. -Matt 14:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a good idea as long as the combination of the bot's well-writtenness and human intervention is adequate, and we have the details of what it's going to do before it starts work.
Basically there are three tasks involved:
  • moving the pages
  • updating the navigation headers
  • updating the links down the hierarchy
If a bot is competent to carry out these tasks, then I would be in favour. Some details that might need human intervention include:
  • Fixing the spelling and capitalisation of some titles. Perhaps the bot should be programmed to use the text of the down-hierarchy link to each page as the bit to add to make a new title, and so the human work would be making sure these are correct. Of course, some trivial corrections, such as capitalising the first letter at each level, can be automated.
  • Keeping an eye open for any links on pages that a bot may mistake for down-hierarchy links.
-- Smjg 16:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
This bot fixes all links to page it had renamed, it does not use book hierarchy. When it comes to title capitalisation - yes, this bot is flexible and such options is also possible. --Derbeth talk 18:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "it does not use book hierarchy"? -- Smjg 10:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
You don't need it as you have "what links here" feature. --Derbeth talk 10:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not sure what you mean. By "it" in your first reply, do you mean the process of fixing links or the bot as a whole?
  • If the process of fixing links, then yes, that makes sense.
  • If the bot as a whole, then I don't see how it can rename pages without using the hierarchy. Even if it uses What links here to determine what to name each page, that's still following the hierarchy (albeit bottom-up rather than top-down), isn't it? And what would it do if more than one page links here?
-- Smjg 12:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
If there is any doubt as to what the bot is supposed to do, I'll simply ask for clarifications. I won't accept vague or impossible requests. If the process cannot be automated (for example, because pagenames are too inconsistent), I won't run the bot and will require a manual list of what to fix/move. But those are unusual situations. / tsca ✉ 14:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I can forsee exceptions to requiring an author's permission. I recently brought LPI Linux Certification into WB:NP compliance. This book had not otherwise been edited in over a year. It seems reasonable apply the bot to such an apparently forgotten book. However, I would want the bot to be used one book at a time and with a human designated beforehand to check the results. Note that there may be issues with books appearing multiple language. When I updated LPI Linux Certification, also updated the French Wikibooks version's transwiki links to the English version. (I did vote to support.) --JMRyan 20:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Reasonable compliance to this would be to come up with an idea for renaming the pages on the main talk page of the Wikibook, and potentially adding a quick note on the talk pages of most of the users who have done some major contributions to help add some commentary to help come up with the direction of the formatting. If those users aren't active or don't want to get involved with the decision but you are, feel free to help make that decision. Keep in mind this is Wikibooks and not Wikipedia, so give it a little bit of time before you make a final decision, especially if it is a radical change. A month of discussion is certainly reasonable here, but this is a judgement call that you as a contributor would have to make. --Rob Horning 21:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This appears to be a request for bot status - currently User:Guanabot, which fixes double redirects, is the only registered bot. As I understand it, we only need to do m:Requests for bot status if we want the bot status that hides the bot from Special:Recentchanges.
I have not voted yet, but I do not know any reason to hide the bot from Special:Recentchanges. Thus, unless someone gives a better explanation of the request, I will probably oppose it. --Kernigh 00:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
One huge reason I support users with 'bots to "register" with the project they are running on is that if you find a 'bot that has run amok you can try to find out who is responsible. Also, anybody going through the effort of trying to register the bot and get community acceptance is likely not to be a spambot or do something seriously damaging to the project. In essence, this is a whitelisting of a user that we can accept as being reasonable. In addition, if you have concerns about 'bots, you can change the flags for recent changes to monitor only 'bot changes, if they have been registered. Basically this is just one more option to monitor what is happening on the project. If there is a serious problem, we can always block the 'bot user account as well. With this in mind, why is this not a Bureaucrat function to set this flag? --Rob Horning 02:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the good explanation! Also, tcsa.bot already has a bot flag at [Commons (bot list) and pl.wikibooks (bot list), so I will support. --Kernigh 03:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
This bot has the flag in wiktionaries: pl, nl, it; Wikipedias: pl, csb, da, de, sv, cs; pl.wikisources, pl.wikibooks, commons. / tsca ✉ 14:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BimBot ( talk | email | contribs )

Hello, I've a bot. I ask you the permission to use it on this Wikibooks. It's running on italian Wikibooks. It's a interwiki bot. Excuse my bad English. -- PietroDn 11:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support --Derbeth talk 11:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support "bot" flag for interwiki bot --Kernigh 01:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --JMRyan 18:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • it:Utente:BimBot is the only flagged bot at Italian Wikibooks. The edits seem okay, and English Wikibooks seems not to have such a bot yet, so I support. --Kernigh 01:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: Even though i assume a spammer or a ne'er-do-well wouldn't go through the trouble to ask for official bot status here, i would still like to get a better idea of what BimBot does before i vote in support of it. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 04:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
See meta:Interwiki.py: it's the script that I use. -- PietroDn 18:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Request posted on Meta. Now BimBot is bot. -- PietroDn 07:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_1"