Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Archive 3

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Requests for adminship

[edit] Tannersf ( talk | email | contribs )

  • Oppose -- 260 edits, none in the wikibooks namespace, first edit less than a month ago. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose To early. Small number of edits, no activity in project-wide discussions (VfD, Staff lounge, policies). --Derbeth talk 08:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have to agree, it is just far too early, and this user is completely unknown outside his own pet projects. I don't want to claim that there is a "minimum contribution requirement" to become an admin, but generally we don't promote admins who only work on their own pet projects. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Request rejected. --Derbeth talk 14:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yunzhong Hou (talk | email | contribs | logs)

I am a sysop on the Future Wikia and as thus I am representing the wikia in asking whether or not I may transport some of the information regarding futurology and predictions to Wikibooks. I've made over a thousand contributions on the Future Wikia and I have had experience as an admin and bureaucrat on the Future Wikia for several months. I am thus planning to greatly expand the wikibook on Futurology (which seems to have around a dozen pages at this point) to possibly hundreds of pages on a variety of futuristic topics. You can go check out my edits and the general page quality at the future wikia.


If it's agreeable to you, I'd also like to apply for admin status on Wikibooks as well. I've made plenty of contributions to the Starcraft wikibook some time ago as well. Thank you.--Yunzhong Hou

Against Hello, I said some of this on the Staff Lounge when you brought up the subject, then I realized tha we posted pretty much at the same time. The main thing is, you don't need Admin powers to make a book here, and unfortunatly, I feel that you have not demonstrated that you understand current policy. Maybe you do, maybe you don't, but I didn't see to many edits pertaining to policy, or reverts and other cleanup tasks that Admins are asked around here to do. You can get started with that by doing some RC patroling, or hanging around the IRC to catch vandals. Nonetheless, I wish for good luck with your projects, and hope you hang around enough to complete a Futurology book (as long as it follows policy of course) --Dragontamer 04:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good to have you as an editor I'm sure (who I'm sure will learn the policies) but insufficient experience on this wiki. Because they are all wikis it does not mean they are the same. I may have thought that but I'm leaning! --Herby talk thyme 08:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- no real contributions in the project namespace at all... why do you want admin tools? Requesting bureaucratship makes me wonder if you understand how things work on wikibooks as well. Hang out for a while and help out with non-admin maintenance stuff so we can get to know you a bit. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Given no further views expressed over a week this is closed as failed --Herby talk thyme 12:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herbythyme (talk | email | contribs | logs)

OK enough, not solely based on today's vandal, but that is the straw etc - fairly reluctant self nom, not completely or it wouldn't be here. Why have my views changed - I'm getting irritated by having to ask others to finish off things that I could and would do myself. I've been involved with the majority of Vandalism in progress notifications since I've been here. I reckon I probably place around half the tags on new pages and would like to think I deal with half the vandalism. I take an interest in VfDs. So these would be the main areas I would use the tools if I had them. I would be rather prejudiced against vandals. The downside - I would have to be very sure what I was doing as someone else would not be taking responsibility for my suggestions.

I'd like to think I had contributed in some way to moving Wikibooks forward. It's too early - yes it is. However in my time here I've nudged somewhere over 3000 edits (all of which AFAIK have the edit summary completed) across most areas of Wikibooks. I guess a number of the current Admins, while longer serving, became admins with lower edit counts.

If I had the tools I guarantee I would request their withdrawal if I ceased to use them for a period of three months. I like this place and the people - over to you. --Herby talk thyme 09:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Discussion

Votes

  • Support Herby is one of the most active vandal-fighters recently and I think giving him sysop rights would be profitable for the whole Wikibooks. --Derbeth talk 10:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Fully support -- as before :) --SB_Johnny | talk 10:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not so sure As I am often opposed to self nominations. Mirtone @ 12:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
He was nominated before (by me), but declined. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I'm voting in favour as Herby is very active and also when he needs someone blocking or something sorting there's often no admin around to do the necessary work. Are ordinary users allowed to vote in these votes? Xania 12:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course! --SB_Johnny | talk 12:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support There's nothing new that I can think of to say thats not already been said. --darklama 15:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I was about to nominate you actually. (then saw the archives) --Dragontamer 18:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Decent amount of time here. -withinfocus 19:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. One thing that I typically say to all new sysop hopefulls is a warning against burning yourself out. What we need around here is genuine help, not a flash in the pan. I'm certainly not accusing you of any such thing, but you are very active, you have put up a large number of edits in a short time, and sometimes I worry that people who are so driven will get bored with performing the same repetitive tasks on our humble little wiki. We certainly dont have the hustle and bustle of WP (for better or for worse), and some people have commented that wikibooks becomes boring, or even accuse our project of being "stagnant". Also, I want to caution the rest of the wikibooks admins not to become too reliant on Herby, and we shouldn't neglect RC patrolling or vandal fighting just because "Herby has it taken care of". You certainly are a valuable resource to us, but it's all too easy to take you for granted. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Worth an answer I guess. Driven - we all are to a degree and no I won't keep up this rate - I hope. However the vandal bit I can almost do with my eyes closed tho admin tools will make it easier.
Would I go back to Wp - no, it really doesn't have the appeal that this Wiki has, I'll keep an eye on my watchlist there and I have accounts on a number of other wikis, however if I find I'm not around I will request revocation of rights very quickly
WB is certainly not boring, is it stagnant - well I have known fresher water but life is boring without challenges. There are some great editors on WB - the real question is why they are not here voting. I appreciate the support of you guys but is this real democracy? So my aim (other than to look under the carpet where the dirt has been swept) is to see if we can get some interest in the project as a whole rather than just individual books. I have some ideas, I will work on them and bring them to you. I will change things if I can. I will help where I can.
Yes you do take me for granted - so one of you (or more) close off the gaming VfDs. I know little about the subject (and probably the policies too) so I will not close them (& will not close them in the future either probably). Now you know that if I do think you are taking me for granted I will speak my mind (and about anything else too - but you knew that <g>).
So - if any of you want to change your minds it really will not worry me. Otherwise lets get on with improving Wikibooks for all. --Herby talk thyme 10:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Swift 19:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. This user is now a sysop. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Belated upport Better late than never I guess. I want to go on record saying that I support and trust this user to use the tools appropriately. --xixtas 04:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikiwarrior ( talk | email | contribs )

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikiwarrior i would like to be the newest admin

  • Comment Although the number of edits isn't crucial I think you probably need to be on Wikibooks for longer than one day to be considered as a possible Admin. Xania 15:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing personal and good to have you here I am sure but you need to stick around and do stuff - there is plenty to do. --Herby talk thyme 16:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, speedy close -- this is almost certainly willy on wheels a.k.a. the porn vandal, given the rather odd behavior. See also here and here. I recommend all administrators watch this account closely (I haven't blocked it yet). --SB_Johnny | talk 16:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Swift 04:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a serious application. --Derbeth talk 20:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Panic 03:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
closed as failed --Herby talk thyme 15:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sysopbot (talk | email | contribs | logs)

On the suggestion of Whiteknight and the RC patrollers, this bot would be able to perform sysop functions under the bot flag. The bot will be a shared account among wikibooks administrators, for the purpose of doing large cleanup task which require sysop tools, but would also be handy for other cleanup functions.

We already have a fully automated deletion bot (gift from a meta admin), which is being used for deleting unlicenced images. I recommend that any new scripts involving sysop tools should also need community approval (here or on the SL) before they are put to use. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion:

Please see below for discussion of this bot, under "requests for bot status".

Votes

  • Support - It would be nice to consolidate the various bots we use to work under this one so that confusion over who is doing what gets minimized. -withinfocus 19:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. (edit conflict - damn you beat me to it!) You trust the admins - you trust this. All actions will be transparent (pretty sure?) to all. If there is anything anyone abjects to I'm sure they will make their feelings known --Herby talk thyme 19:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - support withdrawn - see my comments under bot request --Herby talk thyme 09:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment vote returned to support on the same basis as my vote on the actual bot - ie those mentioned only. I'm not fully comfortable but having deleted two books now I do see a real need for this power from time to time. As an admin if I saw anything I was uncomfortable with I would block the account until it could be sorted - I hope this may re-assure non admin voters --Herby talk thyme 16:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is it not possible that such a bot could be abused by someone? There are many inactive administrators and it seems quite risky to allow a bot admin rights. I could be wrong of course as I'm not 100% sure about what it would be able to do. Xania 21:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. In response to User:Xania, Johnny and I have discussed this very issue, and I think what we will do (if this request is accepted by the community) is to only give the password to well-trusted administrators. We might even create some kind of nomination proceedure for active admins to get access to the bot. Also, we would change the password on a regular basis, and people who arent trusted, or who aren't active wouldnt receive the new password. The bot essentially is capable of doing whatever an admin is capable of (blocking, deleting/undeleting, protecting), but can perform these actions on multiple pages very quickly. For instance, we could delete an entire book (all subpages, images and categories) in a single click. This sounds dangerous, but consider trying to delete an entire large book by hand: It's terribly boring! This kind of thing isn't a problem on other projects like wikipedia, because deleting an article is not nearly as big a job as deleting an entire book! Also, this bot could be used to block a list of open proxies, which is a job that currently can take several hours to do! --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 04:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose there is nothing wrong with a bot having sysop status (I have one on WN myself :)) The problem with this is consolidating it. If a bot starts acting up we need to be able to block it without harming its other functions. I do however fully support individual task sysop bots.--Cspurrier 15:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am uncomfortable with the idea of a multi-user account. I know you guys have methods of secure sharing, but it just seems to risky, and the precedent is not one I intend to be complicit in forming. --Iamunknown 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose since there seems to be some good points brought up on why sharing an admin bot could be trouble. I guess we may be better off having one or more sysop bots, each controled by a single admin with community approvel on both it becoming a sysop bot and on what functionality it will have and developing some guidelines to address this issue. --darklama 06:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose see my comments above and at the bottom of this page. Xania 14:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm closing this one as failed --Herby talk thyme 08:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SB_Johnny (talk | email | contribs | logs)

OK, this is a bit strange, but my name on all wikiprojects but this one is actually SB_Johnny (as opposed to SBJohnny (talk | email | contribs | logs). I usually forget about it, but I'm a little concerned about what's going to happen when SUL (Single User Login) eventually gets implemented, because I'd have to constantly be logging in and out (especially a problem because I'm a sysop on another project using SB_Johnny).

Apparently moving my account is a big pain in the butt because I hold the other account as a sockpuppet (if there was no account, it would not be an issue.

The reason I have it is because when I first signed up on wikibooks, there were server problems, and I kept getting logged out. managed to forget my password one of the times, requested a new one be sent, and it turned out that the email servers weren't working, so I made my current account and just forgot about the issue.

I'd like keep hold of SBJohnny as well, and perhaps use it for a bot (if/when I figure one out).

Sorry for the confusion :). --SB_Johnny | talk 15:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Xania 18:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I support the move to the other account, but I will only support that if the other is de-sysopped first. I just don't like the idea of "perhaps use it for a bot" since I feel it sort of avoids community approval. Even though I don't think you would be abusive in any way, all this business with everyone running bots now is a bit out of approved control and I think this needs to be taken one step at a time. Once you become the new admin (and unfortunately lose all your history) and are de-sysopped at the other, I would support a vote to make the old a sysop plus bot flag. -withinfocus 20:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't need the bot flag for a while... need to spend the winter learning how they work :). But, why would I lose the "history"? Even if this account is desysoped (which if fine with me), it would still have all it's logs, wouldn't it? Let me ask around a bit more to see if I can just get them combined somehow (or even just delete SB_Johnny and change my current username). --SB_Johnny | talk 12:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I am in almost complete agreement with withinfocus here. The rapid influx of bots, especially now that we are talking about (and in some cases actually using them) sysop bots does point to the fact that wikibooks has absolutely no policy or guidelines concerning the operation of bots here. In the case of regular contributor bots, this isn't a huge issue, but in the case of sysop bots, we need to be careful. Maintaining two sysopped accounts does appear to be a way around the need to confirm bots separately from their owners, a precident that I dont think we should be making here. Of course, this points to the necessary addition of policy concerning this matter, something that we should definately start discussion on at Wikibooks:Administrators. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Boring but I too am in almost complete agreement with withinfocus here. The "maybe bot" account must only have basic user rights. --Herby talk thyme 08:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support As long as you are the same SBJohnny, then I don't see a problem. --Dragontamer 02:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Ok, no problem. --Derbeth talk 19:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Betsy 15:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Pathfinders 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - This has gone on long enough. Does everyone else agree that the original user should request de-sysopping so this can move further? If so, Johnny should request this at Meta. -withinfocus 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Panic 23:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with Withinfocus' suggestion. --Swift 10:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed. I am going to work with Johnny over the next few days (if I can get ahold of him on IRC) to try and rename him from "SBJohnny" to "SB Johnny". If this is successfull, his adminship rights should stay with him in the new username. If it is not possible, we will work on the alternative (desysop the one account, sysop the other). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tannersf (talk | email | contribs | logs)

  • Discussion:
From the top of the page: "... and who have demonstrated a specific need for the additional tools." This user has as of yet, not explained his need. --Swift 08:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Though unsure of the relevance of such a matter, I'm a little unnerved by some of Tannersf's habits. A while back I contacted him regarding my concerns over an over-ambitious project of his, but in my experience he has a bit of a history of abandoning unfinished the large number of books he starts.
I wouldn't mind seeing some examples of more research into WB policies than my first acquaintance of him illustrated. I don't mind this from fellow Wikibookians (policies are boring and tedious to navigate for restless souls), but I'd like to see a little commitment on this front by someone requesting admin tools.
Another quality that I miss is dedication to community by replying to posts on his talk page. According to his talk namespace edits, Tannersf has been less than diligent in this respect. In fact, most of those edits are the odd "Great Job" posts that SB Johnny contacted him over a while back which Tannersf posted on seemingly arbitrary (I got mine for a very minor contribution after which the module was a considerable way from being "a great module"). He abrubtly stopped after Johnny's comment, but without any recognition, explanation or comment.
I hate to be so gloomy and bring this up since Tannersf is evidently enthusiastic and hard working (this is probably my hardest "Save page" click yet). I am, however, afraid that his past actions are perhaps not indicative of desirable admin traits. --Swift 08:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Votes
    • Oppose - inexperienced user, has a tendency to remove content inappropriately. I would not be comfortable with this user having admin powers. Webaware 02:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Support - I like what I've seen and everything Tannersf has done has been for the good of Wikibooks. Xania talk 00:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose -- to soon and I'm consistent in my vote policy, and so object to give administrative rights to any user that hasn't been involved in wikibooks policy voting or active on the Staff lounge in the last 2/3 months, it's noting against Tannersf but this is a way to attest a user involvement with the community. --Panic 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I am in general agreement with the statements of User:Swift, above. Simply meaning well, or being active don't necessarily indicate a need for additional permissions. I would like this user to demonstrate more of a clear understanding of our local policies and customs first. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Has a lot to learn about wiki editing in general as well as Wikibooks-specifics policies. I would feel very uncomfortable if this user had sysop tools due to past actions that show a lot of issues with this user's understanding of how things work here. -withinfocus 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed. No sense carrying this discussion any further, we don't need any hurt feelings about this matter. This user will not be made into a sysop, although many of the comments indicate that he could become a sysop in the future if he demonstrates a better understanding of the community. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support closure of this RfA, and encourage Tannsersf to keep doing what he's been doing. He's come a long way in a brief time, and I hope he'll stick around, because he does a lot of good work. --SB_Johnny | talk 02:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eclecticology (talk | email | contribs | logs)

I was previously an admin (when I hadn't even asked for it), and it was revoked for lack of use. Now that I have a project to work on in philately it would be handy to have it back ... mostly to clean up my own mistakes in naming images.

  • Oppose - Nice to see you back, but I feel you need to have some real activity here first. You didn't make a single logged admin function in your previous stay. The tools may be handy but I don't think that's a sufficient reason to give them to you. After you have a few months of real activity here and are an active participant in community affairs, then I'll support you. The main reason your tools were removed was because you likely don't know many of the policies here anymore and might use the tools inappropriately or even worse dangerously. An existing admin can currently help you with image matters instead. -withinfocus 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although I certainly don't want this to seem like a personal attack of any kind. We've developed relatively strict requirements (at least in comparison to other projects) for gaining adminship, and (for better or worse) it is no longer as easy as to say "i would like them" in order to get admin tools. By my count, you have just shy of 200 edits, which is a respectable amount, but people have been turned down in the past because they have had "only" 500 or less. We like to see potential admins as having (a) a demonstratable understanding of the relevant policies (administrator policy, deletion policy, user block policy, etc), (b) a certain level of activity and participation, and (c) an intention to remain an active part of this community for an extended period of time. Considering your long time involvment in this and other projects, it certainly isn't an issue of your trustworthyness or your ability. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Closed as failed as no further votes have been received in the past two weeks --Herby talk thyme 00:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celestianpower ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs)

Hello. I joined Wikibooks about a year ago, but I only started contributing with any sort of regularity since December last year. Since then, I have written (and continue to write) the featured book Spanish from scratch (I archived what was there and started over); this shows my commitment to the project. I am a trusted admin on both Wikipedia and Wiktionary already, showing both that I know how to use the tools, and that I don't use them abusively or against policy.

At various points here, I have found myself needing admin tools, particularly deletion. This has mainly been for correcting my mistakes, fixing page moves that have gone wrong, deleting userspace sutff, etc. However, when travelling around the site (looking at RC, reading other books and whathaveyou), I've seen blatant vandalism (you know the sort: long lines of profanity, odd strings of characters, etc), reached for the delete button, only to find it not there. This is annoying, so that's why I'm here. I don't promise to be the greatest vandalfighter ever to live, but when I see vandalism, at least I'll be able to deal with it without bothering Herby et al.

I realise that most of you will barely have heard of me, but the tools would be ever-so-useful. Thanks and kind regards, Celestianpower 13:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: It was pointed out to me that I hadn't enabled my email address here. Sorry - it's now enabled.Bring on the emails :P. Regards, Celestianpower 14:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support and very happily indeed - quality worker who is an asset to Wikibooks --Herby talk thyme 13:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support -- Certainly trustworthy, good contributor, and we can always use new RC patrollers with extra buttons. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I've been trying to restrain myself from making too many new admin nominations recently, but Celestianpower is one of those people that I have wanted to nominate. --Whiteknight (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support -- Az1568 (Talk) 14:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I would like to see admins generally have more involvement with policy discussions but his record as an admin on wikipedia has been outstanding. --xixtas talk 21:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - You seem to live within your book only. You seem to be a very nice editor, but I don't like that you have essentially no experience outside Spanish. I feel that admin tasks need to span a little bit larger than single-book writers and you should spread out here some more, even just to discuss things and not develop content. We've had several users unfortunately become admins, work on their book (and their book only) for a couple months, then disappear. -withinfocus 22:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support How come I didn't know about this RFA? Xania talk 21:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support --Panic 22:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

This has been a very quiet RFA, probably in part because no-one remembered to announce it on WB:BB (I'll remedy that shortly), and because it's that "post-exams" time of year when people have other things on their mind. I see 5 votes for, and one in opposition. My instinct is to promote Celestianpower tomorrow, but Matt's objection obviously needs to be taken seriously.

I'm going to do my best to confirm that "our" Celestianpower is the same one that is on Wikipedia. Assuming that I am successful, I offer the folowing 3 arguments:

  1. The only qualification that matters when we decide to give someone a few more buttons is whether we trust them to use them exclusively in a positive manner.
  2. Celestianpower has expressed an interest in RC patrolling, and while we're currently blessed with 2 very active admin RC patrollers, we shouldn't take advantage of them by denying more hands (more hands make lighter work).
  3. You wrote the following on my RFA: "I tend to almost always oppose new admins because so many don't stick around". I understand the sentiment, but now that we have a (well-established) policy for removing the tools from those who disappear, this is not such a big deal. We also have a very solid core of administrators who have been doing an outstanding job of keeping Wikibooks in good shape. Having a few extra buttons shouldn't require an oath or commitment: it's just a matter of trust. Celestianpower might disappear in a few months, or he/she (hopefully he/she will be kind enough to provide us with an appropriate pronoun) might become one of our most active community leaders. It doesn't really matter... all we need to establish is that we trust him/her not to use these tools abusively. If we're wrong, we grab a steward, but I don't think we're wrong very often.

All it is is a couple buttons. Every trusted user should have them. --SB_Johnny | talk 20:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Trust is certainly an important issue here. That he/she edits on Wikipedia as an admin is somewhat helpful towards establishing trust, but I don't see much trust being established directly on Wikibooks. Many of us lasted for quite a while without admin tools when we were working within our own book realm. What I want to see first is the expression of some need for the tools, not just wanting them, which acts as a reinforcement for your desire to benefit the project and direct evidence for receiving further "power" on the site. We unfortunately can't grant individual tool rights which might be helpful here, but just because someone wants to delete some pages in Spanish doesn't mean I can trust him/her as a rational user blocker. I think a user needs to be (at least a little bit) well-rounded on the site before they get the whole sysop package. I think this promotes our sense of community and ensures quality of service. Noticing a discussion of Celestian's on another page, believe me that I don't expect him/her to be a policy writer; that's hard enough already unfortunately. I'd just like to see his/her signature on some pages outside the Spanish book. -withinfocus 22:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Identity (and gender) confirmed :). He has in fact said why he wants the tools: first to do administrative cleanup stuff in the Spanish book, and second to help with RC and vandalism partolling. And while it's true that many of us spent a lot more time on RC patrolling before we got the tools, I can tell you from experience that when you're used to patrolling with buttons, patrolling without buttons is a rather depressing experience (try patrolling the RC feeds on wikipedia for 10 minutes, and you'll see what I mean). Herbythyme and I have both gone through this on commons... we're both sysop there now and do our patrolling.
In any case, are you willing to consent with your objection duly noted?--SB_Johnny | talk 13:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If he's who he is elsewhere, then that's fine I guess. I hope he stays active here and wish him well. -withinfocus 22:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Request closed-- with 7 in support, and one opposing but conceding, User:Celestianpower is now an administrator. --SB_Johnny | talk 00:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations for adminship

[edit] Swift ( talk | email | contribs )

I would like to nominate User:Swift for adminship. He has been an active and helpful member of the community for a few months now. He only has (by my count) about 400 edits in the span of 3 months, but there is no hard and fast rule that says an admin should have any more then that. Also, User:Swift has been primarily active in the Wikibooks: namespace, helping to discuss policy proposals. He has recently finished a project to standardize the policy/guideline templates and categories, to help keep things more organized. It is my opinion that he would make a good admin here. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the sign of confidence. I appreciate and accept the nomination. I don't have a great deal of admin tasks that I'm dying to dive into, but for the tasks that I've been involved in it could be an asset. Furthermore, I'd be glad to lighten a little of load on the current admin staff.
I recognise the problem of admins silently disappearing and though I like Wikibooks, haven't really found a niche to commit myself to (I've mostly been tinkering around though I've got a couple of things I'm contemplating). I'm happy to do so for now and don't see myself leaving anytime soon. If I do end up leaving, I'll be sure to indicate my inactivity. --Swift 02:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- he also has over 1,500 edits on wikipedia, a bot on wikipedia, and an account on meta. He's definitely got a head for project structure and organization. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For now; I think he can get it in a few months. Starting at the very end of July, he hasn't been around here very long. Many admins have been active for a couple months, gotten adminship, then disappeared after losing interest in the project. I'll definitely support this after he's made a longer stay. Inactivity is a big problem here. -withinfocus 20:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Didn't we already take care of that? If he disappears, he'll be quietly desysopped a year later. (I wouldn't "strongly oppose opposing" for this reason, but a lot of our longer-term contributors have declined adminship, and I think we really could use some more help, especially if we end up having to delete a considerable portion of those 3,000+ unlicenced images (*shudder*)... that's a lot to ask of the 4 or 5 "regulars"). --SB_Johnny | talk 21:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with SBJohnny: we are lacking in active admins at this point, and swift has shown an interest in the boring parts of the site: the administration, etc. Especially when the de-sysopping below occurs next month, i think you will see that our lists of admins here will be pathetically small. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I figured we could both stop the possibility of admins falling into this as well as removing old ones. If he wants to help out now though, fair enough. Support. -withinfocus 01:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I certainly do understand your previous objections, and I didnt make this nomination lightly. I do agree that we can help to prevent admin disappearance by only nominating admins who show a propensity to remain active here. However, we can't seal off the doors to new admins entirely, and we do need to nominate future generations of them, lest wikibooks be left admin-less in the future. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - We do need some additional people who are willing to take up the banner of being an administrator on this project, and under the policy of it "not being a big deal" and that I consider this user to be a generally trusted user and contientious contributor to Wikibooks, I would like to see him come join our fun in tackling some of the huge outstanding issues on Wikibooks, many of which unfortunately do need the use of administrator tools. --Rob Horning 21:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Swift has been made sysop. --Derbeth talk 14:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darklama ( talk | email | contribs )

In a similar move as the one above, I would like to nominate User:Darklama for adminship. He has over 1200 contributions here, and has been active on the staff lounge, and in matters of policy. He has also worked to fix double-redirects, in the process having to mark pages for deletion instead of being able to delete them himself. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you are the second person to think I would make a good admin (the first having offered to nominate me himself), even though I'm not so sure of it myself, I will accept this nomination, as a vote of confidence in my ability to be a good admin. I understand the concern over inactive admins and see it as no big deal to have adminship removed, just as being an admin is suppose to be no big deal. So if in the future, I'm not using it, just take it, its no big deal to me. I will also try to indicate my inactivity and nominate myself for deadminship if in the future I can't be as active as required. --darklama 14:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The requirements to be "active" are pathetically small. I wouldn't worry about them, if I were you. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not worried about not being active enough. This is about taking the extra step of nominating myself for deadminship, if I know in advance that I won't be around to meet the pathetically small "active" requirements, that is if I know I will be inactive in advance, because its really no big deal to be or not to be an admin. For example if I know I've become too busy with life to contribute to Wikibooks and I managed to find small amount of time to say so, I'd nominate myself for deadminship just to ease the process of having to vote on it. If on the other hand I were to be too busy to do that, I'd also probably be too busy to respond to an email, notifing me of the deadminship process. Sorry if this is a bit confusing. Its just a bit of forward thinking that may never come up :)
I've been told I can be a bit too direct, modest and humble. The only thing I'm worried about, I've decided to let other people decide for themselvies, whether or not I am a good canidate for adminship, since it may be those exact qualities that cause unnecessary concern. --darklama 17:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose -- I don't think darklama has a good feel for the spirit of the project, in that he's shows a great deal of interest in limiting the scope of contributions, while having made relatively few substantial contributions himself. He does have an admirable passion for cleanup work, but in more than one instance has moved around a lot of pages without asking the main authors of the books. He takes part in a great number of policy debates, but always in the imperative mode, which causes me to be concerned about what he would do with the administrator's tools. As much as I feel that we desparately need a larger contingent of administrators, I feel quite strongly that he is an inappropriate choice.

I do consider darklama to be a man who always tries to act in good faith. I think he needs to dedicate himself to writing for a while, rather than doing cleanup jobs. I think he needs to experience the sense of pride and attachment that comes from doing good work on a good book (or even good articles... I'm sure there are plenty of articles on wikipedia that he could contribute to, watch, defend from vandals, etc.... wikipedia is (in my view) just a big wikibook, and there's lots of work to do there if he can't find a project here). My concern is that he tends to involve himself in projects he's not interested in and make a lot of changes without any apparent sense of the damage he may be doing or the feelings of the authors. We need libertarians, not censors, and darklama's approach to things (from my observations) tend toward an outsider's minimalism, rather than an insider's impulse to create great books.
I really like darklama in a lot of ways, but his dictatorial approach to things makes me very nervous about offering him tha admin tools. I would need to see a bit more maturity as an author (not just a cleanup guy) before I could honestly say that he's a "trusted member of the community", because this "community" is a community of authors. --SB_Johnny | talk 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to admit that I am shocked by this vote. I expected you to say...essentially the exact opposite of what you did say. Darklama has seen his share of drama here (notably the scuffle with User:Panic2k4), but I would argue that none of these problems were caused by Darklama so much as they were caused as territorial authors who want to maintain strict control of their own pet projects. He is a well-meaning contributor, he is bold about making improvements in books, and even when he did get into disagreements with other authors, he handled them in a calm, mature way. I don't think that there should be any requirement about authorship, because admin tools are not tools for authoring. Admin tools are used to aid people who perform cleanup tasks, and Darklama performs cleanup tasks. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not so much authorship per se, but having a feel for authorship. The "Panic problem" isn't the issue, it's more the renaming and restructuring of other books without asking around first about why the structure is so strange, and even marking all the redirects for deletion when it isn't clear if the authors are aware of the changes. In the water book, he was asked to undo all of his changes by the author, but didn't do it (though to be fair I'm not certain that he can, since the redirects were modified with tags after being made). He also refers to a lot of non-admintool related cleanup tasks as administrative tasks (which they aren't), which makes me think that he sees adminning as something other than what it is.
He's a good contributor, and I don't think he's going anywhere... I'd just rather wait a bit before he gets syssoped. He was badly bitten as a newcomer, and my suggestion that he do some more content work first is mostly because I think he needs to get a feel for the joy of wikibooks, rather than the enforcement-oriented approach he takes to things currently. IOW, I think he has a tendency to assume bad faith (and he has good reason to do so), and that can cause trouble. Adminship is about helping people write good books, not about defending wikibooks from whatever it is it needs defending from. Let's not look for trouble... it'll find us, and when it does, we haven't had too much difficulty handling it. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Now in Support -- I've chatted with him quite a bit on IRC, and I think he's ready now. He's also the sort that will help with the big backlogs we have around here, which are causing considerable aggravation in certain users. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose -- I also think it is to soon and most important the user is directly involved in disputes, and so, I also admit to be "shocked by this vote". I don't doubt the darklama intentions and have taken some joy on the active debate we are involved, even if given the Adminship I doubt that he would use it in an intentional bad way, we agree on many things and he really demonstrates an active interest in contributing to wikibooks, but since we have still a limited set of policies in active status, Adminship should only be given to more seasoned users, and preferably users that start a project on wikibooks or contribute content to a work for some time, and have a real invested interest on the community in itself. I must say also that this vote is not based only on the "Panic problem" :) (I probably should have avoided this vote, but I still can't believe that it was proposed, since it was a given that at least one user would oppose it, the logic of the proposal could be in itself be seen in a very dark light, but I think that was not Whiteknight intention), but even if the small set of Amins rights are given in this way, and with this timing, we as a community will only be inviting trouble...--Panic 03:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    • It certainly wasn't my intention to try and reward User:Darklama because he got into a fight with you! I perhaps could have nominated you as well (which would have kept the playing field level), but User:Darklama has been very active in policy discussions lately, and that's one of the things that I am most interested in when I make such nominations. I can certainly understand what you are saying, although I haven't changed my opinions of User:Darklama, nor have I changed my opinions that he probably should become an admin. Of course, one vote, especially if it is cast against the overwhelming tide, is certainly not enough for the motion to pass. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I've looked at this user's edit history. It shows a long period of activity on this Wiki. Considerably more than some current admins and this Wiki really could do with some people who want to do the cleaning work. If ever people cease to be active without explanation who have these tools I shall be unhappy but there is work to do. All admin contributions are seen so they can be judged. I guess this will stagnate like other things but if this pushes things along - fine --Herby talk thyme 13:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Now in Support -- --Panic 18:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Darklama is now a sysop. --Derbeth talk 21:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)'

[edit] Herbythyme (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Herby hasn't been here all that long, but he's made a lot of contribs in many projects. He's also an RC patroller and has caught vandalism time and time again, so I think the block tool would be useful for him (as well as the delete tool for pagemove vandalism). He's also in Britain, and thus can help provide some "timezone coverage", since there's often a gap in administrator presence during the hours he's most active. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I really have given this considerable thought but in the end I find myself feeling like Panic and if I wouldn't vote for me why should anyone else so, with thanks and respect to my nominator, I will decline this for now. However while I hold the "talking stick" I would like to air a point. Wikibooks is a small but very pleasant Wiki and it needs to give some thought on how housekeeping may be maintained at a good level with scarce admin resources. Yesterday I came across a page that was solid spam, I blanked it and marked it for deletion. Now an admin with more than enough has had to review it and delete it - frankly I think that is daft under the circumstances. I would ask that a discussion on this continue elsewhere and I hope it does. With thanks for your time --Herby talk thyme 17:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - To soon. --Panic 17:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You want to wait until this user accepts or declines his nomination? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well lets say I oppose the nomination then. The ground for my vote will not change.--Panic 17:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Much, much too soon. This user has been here for less than two weeks. I find only a couple months of activity to be disturbing. I don't think anyone can grasp everything here at the project in that time no matter how much activity they have. Great job helping out, but I think some more trust needs to be established. I also don't think voting needs to wait for the nomination to be accepted. -withinfocus 22:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kellen (talk | email | contribs | logs)

A "seasoned" veteran (pun intended), Kellen knows wikibooks top to bottom, including tools like DPL which few others completely understand. Primarily active in the Cookbook, but as that's probably our largest project, it's appropriate that active members there should have admin tools for blocking, deleting, and of course importing wikipedia's huddled masses of unappreciated recipes. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination; I'll accept. In my defense: I've been active on wikibooks since 06 January 2005, and have made over 6000 edits to wikibooks. I've been involved in a good number of policy and deletion discussions in that time and in particular have pushed for a greater understanding of consensus and a more inclusive idea of what a textbook is or can be. A point of concern about my adminship may be that I have mostly focused on the Cookbook. The cookbook is the largest book, and unfortunately is also the most disorganized and full of poor content; it has been my goal to standardize formatting, naming, templates, and categories, and to delete or clean up low quality material. Pursuant to this goal, I've written Cookbook:Policy and done much of this reorganization myself. So I hope I can be forgiven for a narrow focus in the past. Kellen T 16:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- --Panic 17:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Kellen was kind enough to welcome me and has done what they can to help me find my way around. A safe pair of hands I'm sure Herby talk thyme 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I thought you already were one. This shows that there are too many active usernames starting with the letter "K". Also, I don't think being a specific book editor is bad at all. I personally maintain the Muggles' Guide which needs the work due to its size. Now the Cookbook can have a sysop to clean up when it's needed. -withinfocus 22:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The same applies to me, I always thought that Kellen had sysop rights. Doing lots of work in Cookbook (largest book on Wikibooks), I think he should become a sysop. --Derbeth talk 08:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Kellen fits the very definition of an admin: helpful, trusted, active. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Two years active, and no admin yet? The current admins must have been sleeping ;) --Kempm 16:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Due to the overwhelming support, I see no reason to delay this vote any longer. This user is now a sysop. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iamunknown (talk | email | contribs | logs)

This user has been a valuable and active helper here since October, although he has had a number of minor outlying edits dating back to November 2004. By my count, he has over 850 edits, including many which are boring administrative edits (image tagging, link fixing, etc). Also, this user has been active asking and answering questions on staff lounge, working on policy documents, and generally trying to make Wikibooks a better place. I would like, therefore, to nominate him for adminship here, in the hopes that the additional tools will help this user continue to help us. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 04:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Acceptance of Nomination
    • I decline --Iamunknown 01:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    • I am afraid that I will be unable to devote what I consider to be a proper amount of time to Wikibooks especially starting in January. I thank you all for taking the time to vote at and discuss my nomination. I may consider requesting adminship at a later point in time. Cheers, Iamunknown 01:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Votes
  • Support - I read that voting doesn't have to wait until the user accepts a nomination but please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm supporting this nomination because Iamunknown is very active, does a lot of tasks which I have no clue about and is working for the good of Wikibooks. Xania talk 12:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think Iamunknown is ready yet. Categorizing articles for speedy deletion that shouldn't be candidates for speedy deletion is particularly worrisome, but in general I think he needs to become more familiar with the wikibooks structure. He needs more time. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about, I've been following a number of his speedy-deleting nominations on the RC list, and all of them were perfectly plausible to me. The difference between a VfD and a speedy candidate is often a grey area, and one that is very open to some interpretation. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    There've been at least a couple I ran across while going through CSD... I think admins need to have a good idea about where that grey area is, since they've got to know when not to use the delete tool and list on VfD instead.
    The other thing is that the majority of his/her edits have been made within the past 2 weeks... it's just too soon. --SB_Johnny | talk
  • What I'd like to see is a wide-range of opinions among Admins and I think Iamunknown would help bring this to Wikibooks. Disagreement is often good as it provokes debate. As for the grey area - I agree. I usually ere on the side of caution and call for a vfd when it's probably not necessary. What should be remembered is that Iamunknown is working for the good of the project just like everyone else. That's my two euro-cents. Xania talk 21:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Az1568 (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Az1568 is an active vandal fighter who has been a significant benefit to our project since he joined in early September. Since then he has amassed 650 edits, most of which have been reverting and cleaning vandalism. While the argument could be made that this user could stand to be more active in other facets of our community, we cannot deny that he is immensely helpful, and that he has demonstrated a pronounced need for admin tools such as blocking, deleting, and rollback. I think he will make an excellent admin, and will remain a valuable resource for our community. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 04:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Acceptance of Nomination
    • I accept my nomination. --Az1568 04:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Discussion
This candidate has agreed to have a checkuser check run on them. The result will be placed here --Herby talk thyme 08:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The checkuser check was completely clean. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly does a checkuser check? Just curious. Jim Thomas 15:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, checkuser checks to see if the user's IP address(es) are used by sockpuppets or known vandals. It is usually used to see if a new user with a pattern similar to a banned one is in fact the same person. Gentgeen
Regarding User:Panic2k4's comment, I'd like to mention that, to my knowledge, there exists no type of requirement that a user be involved in a minimum number of areas of this fine project of ours (one might even argue that an RC patroller who didn't "waste" his time writing content was a great asset). Everyone has their field of interest. If someone can help and is trusted for the tools, that wikibookian should be given them (especially those who have "done a great job").
Given the recent onslaught of rapid page-move vandalisms, a quick hand in blocking to minimize damage is very valuable. As Az is often RC patrolling when many regulars are off, giving him blocking and deletion tools could be a great improvement to the WB:CVU. --Swift 10:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not proposing for it to be used as a general requirement (probably it should), but I'm not defending that here, as most of the voters don't have direct contact with the person that is proposed, I base my decision (vote) on the user participation on the community and his actions in general, I do think that any "to be" administrator should be very active in policy discussions and have a more that basic understanding of Wikibooks and its differences to other Wikimedia projects, that was it, I was expressing my vote intention and stating my bases for it (there isn't a requirement that I even state the why of my vote, it just polite and more positive to do so...), sorry, I hadn't noticed your post before. --Panic 02:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Votes
  • Support - more than happy to support this RFA (& happy to be first!) - active and helpful --Herby talk thyme 07:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - looking at his/her contributions I see that he would make a great admin and make use of the extra tools. Xania talk 12:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - good RC patroller and careful contributor, and he's often around during hours when many of the other admins (me included) are sleeping :). --SB_Johnny | talk 14:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Quickly on top of vandalism, might as well let him complete the admin actions he often needs himself. -withinfocus 16:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I just realized (because i must never have read the paragraph at the top of this page) that a nomination doesnt count as a support vote. So, here is my vote. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Jim Thomas 15:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC) aka Jomegat aka jωt
  • Support Gentgeen 03:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Az1568 has done a great job, but I will, from now on, object to give administrative rights to any user that hasn't been involved in wikibooks policy voting or active on the Staff lounge in the last 2/3 months, it's noting against Az1568 but this is a way to attest a user involvement with the community, if I missed some of your actions in that regard, Az1568, I'm sorry and I will change my vote... --Panic 00:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
    Az1568 has been quite committed to, and succesfully involved in the WB:CVU community. The comments following the support votes above clearly attest to this. --Swift 10:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Figured I'd list a vote here since I'm commenting in the discussion and on a vote. I have nothing but good to say about this user but don't know him well enought to take a stance. Due to the strong support from Wikibookians who keep a better eye on Az's field of interest than I, I'm not loosing any sleep over this nomination. --Swift 10:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. This user is now a sysop. 7 votes for, 1 against, 1 abstain. Objections not withstanding, there are requirements on activity, but not on the specific ways in which a wikibookian must be active in order to qualify under current policy. We can't expect any candidate would satisfy all individual arbitrary metrics in this regard. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects)
Humm this should probably be posted on Whiteknight talk page but here it goes as it may be important to the other users...
I start by stating that I don't object to the Az1568 being made an administrator (not since the input from Swift, txs), but I think the method is laking, since there was a vote against, no consensus was reached "This user is now a sysop. 7 votes for, 1 against, 1 abstain. Objections not withstanding" this is plainly wrong, or am I missing something ? (btw sysop = system operator is not equal to administrator as an user with "some" administrative rights, to be true co-sysop would approximate better the status update) --Panic 18:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you said regarding the word "sysop", but consensus can happen even without 100% approval. An opposition was made, a sufficient rebuttal provided, and no further objection was received. Dropping a single vote in can't be a show-stopper and the amount of positive, supporting input outweighed it. -within