Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Archive 5

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

[edit] Requests for permissions

[edit] Administrator access

[edit] Laleena (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

Closed as Not done. Although Laleena has made valuable contributions, several areas of concern have been raised. Laleena is advised to continue contributing and to become accustomed to the community here.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate Laleena as an admin. Laleena is an active RC patroller, and has demonstrated a need for the Import tool. I think we could also trust Laleena with the other admin buttons. --Jomegat (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Thank you, Jomegat, for the nomination. I realize that it takes trust for a nomination, and I thank you. Laleena (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Oppose I'm afraid. Laleena may well prove to be a good admin in due course however I believe it is rather early for now. Specifically they are (or appear to be) unaware of policy as recently they needed reminding that VfDs remain open at least 7 days. They warned a user who had already been warned earlier by myself for the same edit. The "joinus" template was amended to suggest that creating an account would allow people to "rise up through the ranks". There have been a number of minor issues which to me add up to someone not yet ready for these rights. --Herby talk thyme 08:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Oppose - I wouldn't be comfortable with this user having the ability to delete pages. Lots of good work, but still quite a bit to learn about Wikibooks. Webaware talk 11:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Oppose - Knowledge of how things work here is really not sufficient yet; Herby mentions two cases, but there are others. I also have to disagree with Jomegat's statement that Laleena needs Import permission. Finally, while vandal reverts have been fine, reporting of vandals leads me to the conclusion that Laleena is not ready for the blocking permission. I'd suggest reviewing the nomination for the rollbacker permission (only!), which was not granted. Please do continue to contribute to the project, but I don't think additional permissions are a good idea at this point.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Oppose - Needs to show a better understanding on how and why the community operates. As with Webaware I would not feel comfortable at this point with granting the user the ability of deleting pages. --Panic (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neoptolemus (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

This user has had +rollbacker and +patroller rights for a while now (not a long while, admittedly), and has demonstrated expert use of them. These rollbacker and patroller rights serve as an excellent stepping-stone for new admin candidates, and i think Neoptolemus is the perfect example of how the new system can work. He has over 1300 edits, and has been an active member here for over two months which, incidentally, is how long I was here before I was promoted to admin. For that reason, and with his exceptional performance, I recommend that he be promoted to admin. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Neoptolemus is a machine. When it comes to vandalism, I think of him (?) as Neo from The Matrix. --Jomegat (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am indeed a "he". Minor correction- I only have rollback, not patroller. But thanks to both of you for this nomination and support, which I will accept! Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 02:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support I don't always agree with Νεοπτόλεμος' VfD but feel it likely he will understand not to delete pages without due care and attention. Good vandalblatter. Webaware ^talk 02:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support --Panic (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - for sure. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - this nom was in my mind a couple of days ago. Good nom, good user, thanks for being prepared to help --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support --AdRiley (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - Now he can delete his own friggin orphaned redirects :P In all seriousness, I think your judgment at WB:VFD especially has been excellent, and I'm sure you'll bring that to bear on all your admin actions.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - Has my support all the way, dedicated and knowledgeable. Reece (Talk) (Contributions) 22:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support, I think he would find good use with the tools. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 21:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, with thanks in advance to Νεοπτόλεμος for good work to come :). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 00:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your support. One thing- is there any point in my having rollbacker permissions, or is that something that is incorporated in administrator rights? Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 00:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed +rollbacker, as the permission is redundant with +sysop, and these kinds of things tend to irritate me despite being totally irrelevant ;)  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red4tribe ( talk | email | contribs )

Closed as later in favour of patroller and rollback permissions (below).  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I recognize the fact that I am still rather new to Wikibooks(although my knowledge has quickly improved) , and chances are I won't be accepted now, but I figure I'll give it a shot anyways. I've been editing for 3 weeks, a little over 2 on my account. I have made many valuable contributions, especially on the Dutch Empire. More recently I have taken up to cleaning up after vandals, encouraging ip's who have made valuable contributions to join, and welcoming new members. I have also begun to vote in pages for deletion, featured pages nomination etc. The main reason I wish to become and Admin, is because there have been a few times where a vandal has caused a problem, and I have been unable to do anything about it. I would like to fill that spot, so they do not get a break. I understand if I am not accepted, but I would like to see a reason why if you believe I should not be an Admin. If I am to be accepted, I will do my best to improve Wikibooks. Red4tribe (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral - I've looked through your edit history, and for only being here a few weeks, it's pretty impressive. Still, I'd like to wait a while before nominating, so that you can continue to learn about the Wikibooks community. Hoogli (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. This user has nearly 1000 edits to his name, and all of them have been valuable. While there are a few areas where I feel like you could use a little more experience, i don't feel that any of them are so bad as to prevent you from becoming a new admin. Your work on Dutch Empire has been excellent, your work finding and reverting vandals has also been exemplary. Regardless of the outcome of this RFA, I would like to promote you to +rollbacker and +patroller ASAP, assuming there are no objections to that specifically. If people feel that you need more experience (and that's likely to be a concern), +rollbacker and +patroller are great ways to get it. Also, make sure you browse through some of the pages at WB:PAG, since they are important for admins. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Since you provided yourself the arguments and even seem to predict the outcome I will only restate the most obvious and historically what are taken as valid reasons not to grant the flag. You have proposed yourself for the flags, hence the most important part of your request is the reason why you requested the admin flag, as I see it the task that prompted you to need the tools is a very problematic one. Blocking users should only be done by admins with a great level of experience and as the last resort, it is a very time consuming and can lead to conflict and is a magnet for related problems and work. A block is the highest penalty a Wikibookian can be subjected to, in the hand of an inexperienced or time constricted admin the tool becomes very dangerous. We see also that you are relatively new here (5 May 2008) getting to understand the policies and guidelines is a must for any would be admin and the only clue the community has that you have a good knowledge of them is only by your time/edits on the community (outside of specific projects) and the level of engagement you have shown in discussing, and implementing them, there are many other bureaucratic tasks that can be performed to help the community that don't require the admin flag, you can try to help the community in that way, for now I will agree with you that it is to soon to give you the flag. Try helping the active admins in other ways this will also help them address your problems (if you report them) more expeditiously. Keep in mind that the requirements of administration will also eat away your time for doing the primary task that is providing content, the core of Wikibooks. If you indeed think you can best serve the community on admin tasks then request them later or wait for a overburden admin or another Wikibookian to nominate you. BTW, great work with the Dutch Empire, your contributions can also work against your more bureaucratic aspirations :). --Panic (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Panic. Give it some more time and keep up the good work. --AdRiley (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I would like to give you +rollbacker though. I'd like to wait to see some more patrolling before giving that bit though. I think your work since joining is great, but it's just too soon. Although you cited involvement in WB:VFD, I'd like to see more there (33 meta edits isn't that much), as well as on the various discussion boards. I think we should certainly revisit this in perhaps a month, because you are certainly headed in the right direction.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Much too new, so new that I don't have enough confidence that you understand our community and policies here. Active users need to see you involved; we've had way too many content editors that become admins and almost immediately leave unfortunately. Give this time. -withinfocus 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - New and inexperienced. In addition to contributing to community discussions as has already been suggested, I think you should help with various maintenance tasks. Both participating in community discussions and helping with maintenance tasks will allow people to see how well you understand the Wikibooks community as well as demonstrate a need for the tools. --darklama 23:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AdRiley (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

Done - All supporting over one week. -withinfocus 23:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed redundant permissions because I'm neurotic :)  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Following the implementation of the full book move tool [1]. I would like to request admin permissions in order to finish cleaning up the naming convention issues (something I have been working at for a while). I have been around here for a while now (I already have rollback and patroller permissions) and feel I have a good grasp of wikibook policies to not misuse these tools. --AdRiley (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support AdRiley has been an active patroller for quite a long time and does good work here. I fully support giving him the tools. --Jomegat (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Webaware ^talk 14:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support looking through the contributions you have made AdRiley i would concur with Jomegat Barry (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Absolutely! I've suggested this at least once before, as have others, so it's great to finally see this name up on RFP. AdRiley has done tons of behind-the-scenes maintenance work, especially with naming, and has given excellent input on VFDs and other project spaces. Rollback and patroller have been well-used. He's shown the ability and need, and I certainly trust him with the extra buttons.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Very active, always patrolling pages. Red4tribe (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think your request suggests that Wikibooks shouldn't expect much from giving the tools to you in the long run due to your goal being narrow and short term; that you won't require use of the tools after your goal is complete. Is this true? Is this what the community can expect? If this is case, I don't think you really want the admin tools, which means you don't really need the tools either. Perhaps instead this feature should be made available to patrollers too. --darklama 12:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry I did not mean to imply that I only wanted the tools for a short term project. I intend to be around here for a good while and make full use of the tools to better wikibooks. Granted my immediate goal is to sort out the naming convention issues (and has been for a good while), but once I have cleared those down I intend to move on to other maintenace projects. Requesting admin tools has been something I have been considering for a while. Twice I have witnessed live mass vandalism and been unable to do anything but revert until an admin has turned up. The extra page move abilities has just given me the push to finally nominate myself. Of course if the community (or indeed myself) feel I am not making use of the tools at any point I will be happy to turn them in. --AdRiley (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support and strongly. Someone who has contributed much to the project in a quiet & competent way. I'm delighted to see this & I definitely trust this user, thanks for helping --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - absolutely. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 11:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Obviously a good wikibookian. He's helpful and active, and those are qualities that we always need in larger supply. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support, He's been a good cleanup man for quite some time, and will make good use of the tools I'm sure. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 15:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Panic (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - When I first started using Wikibooks, I wondered why AdRiley was not an administrator. A dedicated user who knows his way around. Definitely support. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 01:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red4tribe (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

In almost 3 weeks there were somewhat fewer comments than other nominations received, but they have all been supportive of this request, so it is Done  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I requested Admin access about a month ago, but it was declined because of lack of experience, however I did recieve patroller and rollbacker access. Over the past month I have used both Patroller and Rollbacker access, and I believe I have patrolled something in the area of 250 pages. I have continued reverting edits by vandals, and giving them warnings. I have welcomed many new users, helping them find their way around, and I have also become more active in the wikibooks community. Although I still am a little new at this point, I believe I could use the Admin tools properly and overall, help the project.

• Weak support - I'm not thrilled with all your patrols as you know, but they've been mostly fine. As to involvement in community areas, some of your comments at VFD seem like simply "me too!" which is ok sometimes, but perhaps here and here would be good places for something more. However, your work outside community discussion areas looks good, and I'm glad to see some good interaction with new users. As long as you continue to accept help from others I'm happy to have you as an admin here.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 22:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I realize I made a few mistakes page patroling, paticulary earlier, but I've fixed my problem there. Red4tribe (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support A strong willingness to be active, a good contribution history, dedication, and a desire to learn are the most important factors here. Adminship is an opportunity to learn and to get more involved, it is not a badge we hand out once our editors attain perfection. When you make mistakes (it's not an "if", we all make mistakes), I only ask that you learn from them, and learn how to fix them yourself. I support this candidate unconditionally. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support The only mistakes I've seen have been errors on the side of being too nice. I'm convinced he will use the tools for good rather than for evil. --Jomegat (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support I was going to be passive on this and just not oppose it but I will state my support to you due the work you have done so far. I still think it is to early and you probably need more experience (within the project), but this is also the second time you request the tools for yourself and no real reason exists to block you, but this is a bit strange to me, it's like reading a strange adventure book where the hero doesn't have to be placed on an very awkward situation or be dragged screaming and kicking so it will save the world :). Well someone must do the administrative work, better yet if they have some pleasure doing it. --Panic (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support I checked over Red4tribe's contributions and they look fine to me. Good luck Red4tribe (talk)! RobinH (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I have been out of town and away from Wikibooks for three very long weeks. This user appeared on the scene about a month before I left, and I was already impressed with his work. Because I've been gone, I've only seen about half of Red4tribe's work, but what I have seen has been of fantastic quality, and I see no reason not to support. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 03:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucrat access

[edit] Mike.lifeguard (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

Withdrawn by the candidate - This wiki has no need of more bureaucrats. I also believe that some of the !votes below were cast for wrong reasons. Bureaucrat tasks are not urgent, but do require a strong ability to weigh consensus. Whether I have that capacity is not for me to judge, but in doing so one should not consider whether I'm quickly available (that's important for admins and CUs, but not for 'crats). Instead, discussion should centre on cases where I've had to decide what the community thinks about some issue. Examples might be the discussion around user rights or my closing of Laleena's RFA or any number of VFDs or the attempt at consensus on the Blocking guideline which I attempted to broker (and failed).
If we come to have need of another bureaucrat in the future we can consider me for the tools, but addressing the relevant issues. For now, since we don't, I withdraw my candidacy. Thanks to all who commented, and my nominator.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mike is a a highly active veteran here, and if anybody is qualified to be a bureaucrat, Mike is the guy. He's an admin and a CU already. He has over 12,000 edits, with more then half (6,300) being admin actions (4,000+ deletions, 1,800+ user blocks). He's active on wiki and on IRC, so he's easy to get in touch with if people need anything. He's active in new page patrolling, image license issues, vandalism fighting, welcoming new users, and many other thankless tasks. He's an excellent and obvious candidate for the position, and I hope that the rest of the community agrees with me on that.

On a logistical note, We currently have 4 bureaucrats. I know that I have not been as active recently as I would like (although that should be changing as I get closer to the end of the semester). The other three User:Derbeth, User:SB Johnny, and User:Withinfocus have not been as active recently as they once were (although they are not "inactive" in the way we've defined it here either). I personally don't believe that we need to have some sort of finite limit or "quota" of bureaucrats or admins, although I know other members do have reservations about promoting too many. Regardless of the numbers, however, Mike is eminently qualified for the position. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept the nomination, and thank Whiteknight for it. I'll try not to make a big statement like I did on the CU nom, since many of the same comments apply here. I do have the time to take on some additional tools, so if I have the community's trust I'll be happy to serve this role.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 05:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support --Jomegat (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support --Mike6271 (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - Mike has been a huge help with any and all questions new users might have, does a ton of work around here, and if a bureaucrat is needed, I can't think of a better candidate. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 02:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - I had noticed the reduced presence of our 'crats (albeit without particular need for their services - yet!) so I was wondering whether we needed to find another. I reckon we've found him :) Webaware ^talk 02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment As I seem people already adding support votes before the user formally accepts the nomination, I would like to point out that votes should came after it (just to preserve some order and remove any kind of pear pressure for acceptance). Lets wait a bit for the user to explain if he has the will, time and inclination to perform the extra function. Please remember to place a notice in on staff lounge at least after the user accepts the nomination. --Panic (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I had put a notice on the bulletin board, I was heading to the staff lounge and I got sidetracked. I'll do it now. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Next time even those steps should wait for the acceptance doing things otherwise takes the air of predetermination, or an offer one shouldn't refuse. In any case since we are commenting on the subject I personally don't think that Mike.lifeguard was the best candidate for the job. I haven't interacted with him to much but to me he seems to been prone to make snap decisions, and short on words, probably his time and attention is already overextended or probably a character trace as he seems to me to be a very decided person. I don't think he is wrong to the job but there are others that have more experience and would ensure a higher level of commitment to the function, again I don't perceive the need for another bureaucrat, not on the number of administrators we have and on the activity the function has, and Mike has already some extra function to deal with. I haven't yet decided my vote but if opposition appears I will probably support that side. That said my vote will not be a reflection of my views on the user since almost any of the administrators could do the job. --Panic (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - only too happy to. Mike is a very experienced, hard working, fair and neutral Wikibookian who is very intimate with policy. --- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support --AdRiley (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Mattb112885 (talk to me) 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - A very dependable and experienced Wikibookian. Has my support all the way. Reece (Talk) (Contributions) 20:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - We don't need more bureaucrats, it's that simple. The four already here can do the once a month task that comes up and we have done so quickly and easily in the past. Four bureaucrats is already pretty large for this project. This is unnecessary. -withinfocus 21:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose --Panic (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mike.lifeguard (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

Done. It's been a week with nothing but positive support for this candidate. Mike is now a bureaucrat. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 12:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all who supported me both here and previously.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 14:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate Mike for the Bureaucrat tools, as a well trusted and incredibly active member of our staff. We are in dire need of at least one new 'crat due to the snowballing requests for renames related to the SUL issues that are affecting all Wikimedia wikis nowadays. Someone with Mike's seemingly unlimited appetite to be helpful and do thankless jobs will take a lot of pressure off of the current B'crats (especially with 2 of us being very busy with other things right now). There's a big job that needs doing here, and Mike's the right man for the job. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 10:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

For reference, I had withdrawn a previous nomination on the grounds that we didn't need more manpower with bureaucrat tools, and that the discussion wasn't on-topic. As now it seems there is need for more, here we are. Please do consider my comments in withdrawing that nomination when making comments here. However, I accept the nomination, and I don't mind having some additional work to do :).  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 19:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - I'm surprised he didn't have this already. Red4tribe (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment We need to wait until he accepts before voting. --Jomegat (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Support --Ramac (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Support It's obvious that we need at least another, and I can't think of anyone better suited. Chazz (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support If we need another 'crat, I couldn't think of any people better for the job than Mike. PiemanXC (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Mike is the obvious candidate. --Jomegat (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support --AdRiley (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - Remi (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - Definitely the best candidate Reece (Talk) (Contributions) 11:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - of course --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support--Cspurrier (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support--Panic (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - You mean he isn't one already? How could such an oversight have been made? :-) Yes, we definitely need Mike as a 'crat here. --Willscrlt (Talk) 16:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - Junesun (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Sure. --Az1568 ^(Talk) 21:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CheckUser access

[edit] Bot flag

[edit] MonoBot (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

Bot to tag fair use images without a rationale. The bot will look for two things: the fair use rationale template OR any image with an extra text besides the {{copyright tag}}. If it has these two things it will skip. Otherwise it will tag and notify the uploader. Monobi (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot will also notify users only once (ie no flooding of User talk: pages).

Since the code is ready, I've asked Monobi to do a test run of 10 images plus however many User talk: edits.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Last few edits. I did some slight debugging with Mike on IRC and 1) the bot will only warn a user once (but will still tag the image anyways) and 2) will skip images with fair use rationales already. I can (most likely) add features, so just ask me. Monobi (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Hopefully we can get this bot flagged soon. :) --Az1568 ^(Talk) 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This user has gone on a bit of a "spree" here, and has edited a number of images and user pages. He has flooded the RC list, and has demonstrated to people watching that his bot performs without serious bugs. I'm going to grant the bot flag here temporarily so that he doesnt flood the RC any further. I'll remove the flag again when he finishes for the night. With concensus here, we can opt to have the flag granted on a more permanent basis. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest that he be temporarily flagged to get the edits off RC, and I will also support a permanent flag. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 00:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support the bot flag until this task is done.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support --Webaware ^talk 21:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support I agree. I've seen this bot in action, and I can tell you that it can make many good edits very quickly. I just hope that the operator can find plenty of good jobs to do with it. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you bet I can ;) Monobi (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Done -- Clear consensus for a bot that seems to be performing properly. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 03:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wknight8111 (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

I had a bot flag on this account for a long time and I never used it, so I gave it back. However, recently I've been doing bot-related stuff a lot more frequently, and for the sake of our RC patrollers I think that this account should have the bot flag again. I'm planning to run several passes over the Linear Algebra book tonight, because there was a significant donation of content in that book, although it was all in LaTeX format. I'm going to use my bot to covert the new pages into wikitext, and unfortunately it's a tricky task. I've been asked that I flag myself tonight to prevent flooding the RC list because there are some people actively patrolling. If people don't mind I'm going to give myself the flag tonight temporarily for this job, and we can talk about whether it should become permanent. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support and keep it this time.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support of course --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support --Jomegat (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support --Webaware ^talk 21:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - Might have my own uses for it later too. -withinfocus 21:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Done: formalities hardly needed here, of course :). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 00:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Computer (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

• Bot operator: User:White Cat (Commons:User:White Cat) - En-N, Tr-4, Ja-1
• List of botflags on other projects: Bot has a flag on wikimedia (meta,commons) wikipedia (ar, az, de, en, es, et, fr, is, ja, ku, nn, no, ru, sr, tr, uz, simple...) (See: m:User:White Cat#Bots)
• Purpose: Interwiki linking, double redirect fixing, commons delinking (for cases where commonsdelinker fails)

-- Cat ^chi? 16:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Of all the many other accounts you have can you point us to a wiki where you have done similar work recently so that we can see what you do, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My bot account on wikipedia:en:User:Computer can be a good referance. -- Cat ^chi? 17:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI: - Please also note that there is a previous, denied request for bot status here.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't paying attention to it. Real life issues such as an inter-continental relocation distracted me. -- Cat ^chi? 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Question - interwiki.py is very safe. redirect.py is safe, but probably not needed, as I run my bot every time the Special: page is updated (and we have so few we don't really need the bot). Nevertheless, both those functions are very safe, and I'm happy to have you perform them. For Commons delinking, we have User:CommonsDelinker already; I wonder what cases you're providing "backup" and what script is being used for that function? If you're using delinker.py, then it would have all the same faults, so I assume you're using something else for that.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 05:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Commonsdelinker operates out of toolserv. If toolserv is down for any reason so is commonsdelinker. I would use delinker.py off of my own computer in such cases. -- Cat ^chi? 11:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, fine. I hadn't thought of that. Could you point to another wiki where you've done so? Assuming you know how it works, I'm happy to have this bot serve as a backup.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support -- this bot has been operating on a number of other projects, and I have heard nothing but good things about it. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 03:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support — A bot performing safe and boring tasks that is used on many other wikis? No brainer. Zginder (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is no need for this account to have a bot flag. Furthermore, I question the need for two of the three specified tasks. Interwiki linking is welcome, and I'd like to see you do interwiki linking here using this account. If the volume is such that a flag is needed, then I'd support a flag for that task only. Fixing double redirects and acting as a backup for User:CommonsDelinker are not required here.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  I run into the auto spam blocker without the bot flag. It seems like you are quick to change your standpoint. -- Cat ^chi? 20:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  I looked at Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker - it makes perhaps 2/3 edits per week. At that rate, we have no need of a backup. Nor should such a backup (if we ever come to need one) have the flag - it's edits shouldn't be hidden from RC. Furthermore, I have to echo darklama's comments that Wikibooks uses interwiki links very much differently from other projects (specifically, from WP). Assuming you can do it right though, go for it.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see a current need for the things this bot can do. Wikibooks doesn't have a backlog of double redirects for example, and I'm not aware of any cases where CommonDelinker has failed to delink images on Wikibooks. Different languages of Wikibooks might have different approaches to using interwiki links if they are used at all, which may not make sense for a bot to deal with. I believe for instance on English Wikibooks interwiki-ing is generally limited to the main page of a book, which means interwiki links are probably not currently a problem that English Wikibooks has. I have no idea if other languages have a similar defacto approaches or policies concerning interwiki links or not. Since this bot is mostly used in a wiki environment where every page is a separate article it doesn't make much since for use with Wikibooks where pages belong to a book rather then being independent of each other. --darklama 21:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  Some here actively patrol the CommonsTicker and watch for images that would be delinked, in order to find a suitable replacement if possible; that probably reduces the potential for the CommonsDelinker to fail. Webaware ^talk 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  If the toolserv goes down, so does commonsdelinker. -- Cat ^chi? 13:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not done Bots are flagged mostly for the benefit of RC patrollers, and the RC patrollers weighing in here seem to prefer that these edits not be flagged. I encourage White Cat to go ahead run the bot unflagged, and we can flag it later if it ends up causing problems for the RC feeds. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 19:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Very well. -- Cat ^chi? 13:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RamaccoloBot ( talk | email | contribs )

I'd like RamaccoloBot to have the bot flag mainly for adding interwiki without flooding RC. It is active on it.wikibooks and fr.wikibooks where it has the bot flag. It uses the pywikipediabot framework. --Ramac (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Post scriptum: My bot made some edit as Ramac before (Special:Contributions/Ramac) and Mike suggested me to open a RFP (User talk:Ramac). --Ramac (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - Thanks for separating this into a bot account. As you have experience with interwiki linking on Wikibooks, interwiki.py is safe, and the edits done previously were all fine, I'm happy to flag the account if you anticipate flooding RC (even intermittently, which I assume would be the case).  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 05:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Great Coder, he helped my a lot of time with PHP :)

Support --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Support --Webaware ^talk 08:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Support -(Red4tribe (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

Done User:Derbeth has apparently already granted the flag for this user on 6 May. With the complete show of support above, I guess we just call it a permanent change. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he talked to me on IRC on 6 May and granted the flag to the bot. Sorry for this, I thinked it was all ok --Ramac (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollbacker or Patroller access

[edit] AdRiley (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights) (Rollbacker and Patroller)

• ( let's comment rather than vote!). Perfect example of someone who really should have these rights. Been here a long time, dealt with plenty of the "grunt" work (particularly naming conventions etc), deals with vandalism. I trust this user & I'd be happy to grant these rights within 24 hours if no one else does or objects. ( is this the sort of process?!) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  I've been waiting for AdRiley (and others) to request the permissions too. What's the deal here? Have they all fallen off the Earth? I'm going to nominate a few more of the ones we know in a minute. Let's at least get them to say they'll use the tools before giving them too.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 14:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  Done - I misunderstood what was happening here. AdRiley requested the rights; I though Herby got tired of waiting (like me!) and did the nom. Well, this one's obvious, so I'm doing it now.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xerol (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights) (Rollbacker)

Has done good vandal reverts. If you want +patroller, please do a few days' worth without the bit so we can see your work.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Accept - Probably won't go for patroller as I'm spreading my time pretty thin as it is. Xerol Oplan (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Done with no objections expressed  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neoptolemus (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights) (Rollbacker)

Has done good vandalism reverts. If you want +patroller, please do a few days' worth without the bit so we can see your work.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept this nomination. Thanks, Mike! Νεοπτόλεμος 19:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Done with no objections expressed  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous Dissident (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights) (Rollbacker & Patroller)

Has done good patrolling recently, including the idea to add additional comments to {{query}}, and has made good use of this parameter. Would also make good use of rollback (has +sysop elsewhere, so knows how to use it).  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming acceptance I support this one. Known to me & admin in a few places so Rollback would be fine. I'd like Anonymous Dissident's confirmation they are happy that they know what should be here before granting Patroller (something that really is different from project to project) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I do apologise for my lateness in responding, but I accept this nomination, and thank Mike for taking the time to nominate me and write his statement. Cheers, - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I am fairly sure I have an understanding of how the Patroller access works here, thanks for mentioning it, Herby. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Done  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chazz (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights) (Rollbacker & Patroller)

Chazz has done some good vandalism work & knows this place well enough to do new page patrol.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(assuming acceptance) - fine with me --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to take this on... I know my strengths, and I am a writer more than anything else. I appreciate the offer, and would accept the RB bit, because I can see how that would help me in the vandalism reversion that I do, but it's unlikely I would make any decent use of the NPP bit. And, despite what Mike.lifeguard says, I don't know much of WB outside my one pet project... apart from administrative stuff like this, I have only about twenty edits that are outside the Muggles' Guide. Chazz (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Done and very happily - long time Wikibookian and well trusted (rollback only for now) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Panic2k4 (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights) (Patroller)

Panic knows when something doesn't belong on Wikibooks.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(assuming acceptance) - fine with me --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept. --Panic (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Done Patroller rights granted, feel free to ask if you have any queries Panic --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laleena (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights) (Rollbacker)

Laleena has dealt with some vandalism recently, and has done a good job of it. If you want +patroller, please do a few days' worth without the bit so we can see your work.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept, Mike, thank you so much. I will be mainly working on Volcanoes for the test, so check there. Thanks for your trust, I really appreciate it :). Thanks again, Laleena (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've been thinking about this one & left it for others to comment - however they haven't. I am far more up to date with en wb than I was however I accept that I have missed out on some things. I see some very good work from Laleena indeed. However I also see one or two edits that leave me a little unsure. Warning an IP for an edit an hour after they had already been warned (& then requesting a block when there had ben no further edits. Equally possibly being unaware of the block log. I would not stand in the way of Laleena being given the rights but I would also be happy if we saw a little more of the work. We are a small community and "rush" is not in the en wb dictionary! Just a comment and no indication of a lack of trust --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying my best to do a good job, however I might not be :o. Which edits made you feel uneasy? Laleena (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not done - Let's a wait a bit then & see some vandalism reverts etc. over the next week or two, and reconsider then.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jacques Bergeron (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights) (Rollbacker & Patroller)

Has done some excellent work, and would make a good new page patroller (hint hint).  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(assuming acceptance) - fine with me --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposition Mike. I have not been around for a couple of weeks (university and work rushes at the same time). My idea was to stay out of the admin business so I can concentrate on maintenance work. Since there is a clear shortage on both side and I will be able to reuse some of my university work on the maintenance side (book list and others) I feel it's a better use of resources not to take "admin like" tasks. Regards, -- Jacques (talk) (email) 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not done  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terra (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights) (Rollbacker & Patroller(s))

I'm a Rollbacker & a New page patroller on Wikipedia I've used the Rollback feature very carefully, and I wouldn't mind having both Rollbacker & Patroller Rights if that's possible. Terra ^{What do you want?} 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I notice that the vast majority of your edits here are to your own user and user talk pages. having the tools and using them responsibly on WP is a point in your favor, but I would like to see that you are interested in being a regular member here as well. This certainly isn't an opposition vote, and if another admin wants to promote this user I would not object to it. However, I think it would be nice to see you in action so that the need for these tools becomese more apparent. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll go on Wikibooks a bit more, I've spent a lot of time over on Wikipedia and wouldn't mind helping out over here if anyone feels I'm not ready yet to have Rollback & Patroll Rights on this site yet then I'm fine with there decision. Terra ^{What do you want?} 19:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with WK. In particular, I'd like to see some page patrolling without the bit, especially as you're new to Wikibooks. New page patrol requires non-trivial knowledge of our inclusion policy and related stuff. Give it a little while & we'll revisit this one.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Very Well, I'll do what you've suggested. Terra ^{What do you want?} 10:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not done  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ramac (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights) (Rollbacker)

Is active on several Wikibooks languages, including as an admin; knows what he's doing.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 06:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Great work on it.wikibooks and it.wikipedia. A really trusted user. Rock on! :-) --Filnik (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Granted rollbacker only - please do some patrolling without the bit if you would like patroller too.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red4tribe (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

This user applied for adminship above, an application that doesn't appear destined to pass because of issues over experience. Given his activity finding and fighting vandals, and his honest desire to help out around here (active helpers seem to be in short supply recently), I recommend he be given both +rollbacker and +patroller rights as a way for him to improve his vandal fighting and quickly gather more valuable experience. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and I accept. Red4tribe (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Would you please confirm you've read WB:ROLL, WB:NPP and WB:RIGHTS?  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed, I have read them all. Red4tribe (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Unequivocal support then.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 22:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Panic (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support --AdRiley (talk) 06:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Reece (Talk) (Contributions) 14:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Done  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ramac (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

This user already has +rollbacker, and has been using that well. I've also been watching him, on the real-time RC feed, patrolling new pages and dealing with nonsense. I'd say that he would benefit strongly from having +patroller as well. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I accept :-) --Ramac (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Done obviously. Excellent work over the past week.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 22:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dallas1278 (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights) (patroller)

• Has been doing prolific and reliable categorization work & is interested in doing WB:NPP. Any help with such maintenance is welcome in my view.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 10:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment While I can appreciate Dallas1278's enthusiasm and desire to help, I think Dallas1278 has gone a little overboard in categorizing everything alphabetically. By doing that he's made WB:ABC an unreliable listing of book titles, and in turn made the random book link unreliable as well. Not every page on Wikibooks needs to be alphabetized. --darklama 11:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment We are currently in need of another patroller, and I looked back through dallas' contribs and they appear to be fine. Lets see if dallas accepts. Red4tribe (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Many of the alphabetized pages are not book titles. For instance, ETD Guide which does not follow the naming convention, had every chapter added to WB:ABC. I don't think this disqualifies Dallas1278 as a patroller, but we really need to wait on voting until he formally accepts. --Jomegat (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to accept the position - also, if I need to change some of the tags I added please tell me what I need to do. Thanks - Dallas1278 contribs) .

You need to sign in and then add you r signature to your acceptance. Otherwise, how do we know it's really you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jomegat (talk • contribs) .

Support He's a big helper, and has done a lot of good work so far. There have been mistakes, but that's more indicative of our steep learning curve. He is able and willing, and if he wants to patrol new pages we should definitely let him. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Support per my initial nomination. I should point out that (as in the past, and with other users) I'm very happy to help new patrollers along, and I have no doubt Dallas will ask for help if needed. Up to this point, he's made good moves towards proper categorization, though with a few errors. That's hardly surprising, and his reaction to criticism is exactly what we should like to see.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 19:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Support We are in need of another patroller and I am happy with dallas' contributions. Red4tribe (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Support As per Mike.lifeguard. I appreciate Dallas1278's enthusiasm and willingness to accept constructive criticism. --Jomegat (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Support --AdRiley (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of permissions

[edit] Administrator access

The below administrators have been inactive for one year or longer besides a few spare edits. These users (except where noted) have been contacted on their talk page as well as e-mailed if possible to inform them of this process. All users listed below (except where noted) will have their sysop rights removed on 7 Feb 2008 and a consensus decision is not needed; this section is serving to inform the community of their de-adminship. Should a nominated admin come back and contest the nomination, some discussion may occur and the once-admin will be able to re-apply for adminship at a later date. -withinfocus 23:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don-t wish to be disruptive but what is a 'non-outlying' edit? What does it mean? According to the logs Ђорђе has been active in the past few months although certainly not as active as in the past. Xania ^talk 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not disruptive at all. I have responded below. -withinfocus 02:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Request made at Meta. -withinfocus 00:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Both done  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theresa knott (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

Last non-outlying edit 4 Nov 2006.

• Remove as inactive. Made one deletion in May 2007, but apart from that, nothing. As I said below, it is better for admins to be regular editors here. However, Theresa is still around, so it may do good to inform her, if no one has already, out of politeness. Majorly (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  She used to be a major editor here on Wikibooks, and indeed one of the very early major contributors. But I haven't seen her active lately, even though I hold a great deal of respect for her. I agree that this is a classic example of an inactive administrator... although even a minor desire to become active again with Wikibooks would want me to put her back into admin status. If there were a "Hall of fame" for former Wikibooks contributors, she would be on that list. --Rob Horning (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with that sentiment, Rob. She really was a superstar around here, and her work with Wikijunior especially has been hard to replace. If we had a "Wikibookians.org" website, we could easily have a hall of fame there, but nobody seemed too interested in that idea. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Last non-outlying edit 6 Jan 2008.

5 days ago? Xania ^talk 22:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

S/He's got 11 edits on Jan 6, but hadn't edited for over a year before that. As well, has no log entries since December 8, 2007. I'd call that highly inactive.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 22:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I put this one up after scanning every admin's contribs a few days ago and after a second glance this user did a spurt of editing in recent months and so now I am slightly unsure. I've tried to contact the user and have received no response. Does anyone actively object this nomination? I know we shouldn't discuss the policy here but we can certainly question where the inactivity line was drawn. I'd be willing to drop this one if we have users here who are opposed to the inactivity date. -withinfocus 02:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to qualify for an extended period of inactivity. Just because edited few days back... a year is a long time. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I just want to direct people to this users Original RFA. The user requested adminship only to help prevent vandalism to the Serbian book. A number of people expressed concern at his promotion (myself included), and he was promoted to admin after receiving only 2 votes in support (I was one of the support votes, but i'll admit now that my rationale was lacking). He has about 150 log entries total since 2006, the majority of which are image uploads or page moves, not admin tasks. The admin log entries he has are almost all page deletions in the Serbian book, not blocking vandalism, or helping to delete other pages. People don't need admin tools just to help develop a single book. We've rejected many nominations on those grounds in the past. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He did get past just his one book and has been active in other areas of Wikibooks besides this one area. I've also mentioned him and his account explicitly when en.wikipedia was trying to get rid of non-latin user names.... something IMHO is a bunch of BS that I'm very glad hasn't spread here to this project. That this one issue wasn't even raised at all when he became an admin shows how much of a non-issue that really is. 9 admin actions in the log and the recent activity/contributions do suggest that he is monitoring Wikibooks a little bit, and watching his account... what I thought was the main rationale for de-sysopping. I certainly don't consider him to be a problem user by any means. --Rob Horning (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the definition of "activity" can be left open for debate. However, this user hasn't participated (to my knowledge) in any discussions on RFA, VFD, VFU, or anywhere in the reading room. He hasn't combated any vandalism anywhere except in his own books (and they are not a common target, as was assumed in his original RFA). The only pages he has deleted are pages in the Serbian and the Wikiversity "School of Magic" for fewer then 100 total page deletions, with 8 of them having been made in the past year (all on December 7 2007). He has no user blocks, no page imports and no page protections/unprotections in his entire history as an admin here. If he needs 8 pages in the serbian book deleted, he can tag all 8 of them with {{delete}} for the same amount of energy as what he is doing now. we can call him "active" or "inactive" or whatever, but he really isn't using the tools and hasn't demonstrated a need to have them. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. If this user were to have an RFA right now, I don't think they'd be able to show the need for the tools. This may not technically fall within the "inactivity" clause of the policy, but we should desysop them regardless.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 19:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree to desysop. Limited access just for your own books isn't suitable nowadays, and anyhow, he's been barely active since promotion. I'd prefer admins who were regulars here, not those who stopped by occasionally and not knowing what they are doing - especially with no discussions in admin, or otherwise discussion pages. Majorly (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inactive Administrators

The following administrators have been inactive for a minimum of one year, and are to be desysoped per policy. The request will be made at Meta in one month's time. The users below have been informed on their talk page, as well as by email if one was confirmed. As always, no discussion is needed; policy discussion should happen at Wikibooks talk:Administrators, not here.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Mayer (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

• Daniel is a steward, and gave himself sysop rights here on 03:54, 19 August 2005. Since then, he's made a single edit to his userpage, and has no log entries. While stewards are welcome to take action here in emergencies, it is unnecessary and possibly contrary to policy to leave the sysop bit on where there is an active community, such as here. Judging by Luxo's, Daniel is not active anywhere.
• Last edit was: 23:57, August 18, 2005 (hist) (diff) User:Daniel Mayer‎ (w:en:user:maveric149 (sysop), meta:user:Daniel Mayer (sysop, steward), wikimedia:user:Daniel Mayer (Wikimedia CFO)) (top) [rollback]
• Last sysop action was 23:55, August 18, 2005 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . MediaWiki:Sitenotice (fund drive start)

[edit] Dragontamer (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

• Last edit was 19:26, March 15, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikibooks:Requests for permissions‎ (→{{User3|Iamunknown}})
• Last sysop action was 17:59, December 22, 2006 Dragontamer (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Vanilladome.gif" ‎ (Super Mario World was also deleted a while ago...) (restore)

[edit] Jguk (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

• Last edit was 18:04, February 25, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Whiteknight‎ (Wikibooks:Blocking policy)
• Last sysop action was 11:46, January 14, 2007 Jguk (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikijunior Alphabet/Alternative version" ‎ (restore)

[edit] Brion VIBBER (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

While Brion is WMF's lead developer, he doesn't need sysop rights here, and if he ever did, could give them to himself. Brion has stated that he may be desysopped on any wiki where he has the bit.

• Last edit was 16:33, February 17, 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikibooks:Reading room‎ (→Conference proceedings and similar collections)
• Last sysop action was 08:03, February 17, 2006 Brion VIBBER (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Wikimania05/Introduction"

[edit] Jimbo Wales (talk | email | contribs | logs | rights)

• Jimbo is our Benevolent dictator, but is obviously highly inactive here. If he ever needed sysop or 'crat rights here, he could give them to himself. There's no reason to apply the policy inequally on account of his fame. Indeed, we desysoped the "real" founder of Wikibooks User:Karl Wick last year for inactivity.
• Last edit was 12:04, August 4, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:How To Escape the Headlock
• Last sysop action was 09:19, May 8, 2006 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Rip a karaoke cd" ‎ (speedy deleted - not a textbook) (restore)
• If he "could give them to himself" what is the point in taking them away? Why waste time doing things like this when it would have no effect? --ЗAНИA ^talk 11:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  Why waste time? Firstly, talking about it wastes more time than it took me to add him. But to answer your real question "Why bother?" Because that's the policy! If you want the policy changed, go do it. Keep in mind that there's a whole host of others (all devs with shell access, all stewards, and most/all staff) who could give themselves +sysop here, but don't because that would be totally unnecessary, just as it's totally unnecessary for Jimbo to keep +sysop. Adminship is not a trophy, and is "not a big deal".  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 13:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  I always saw adminship as a set of keys to the janitor's closet. Not a big deal, but a sign that you are trusted by the community. If you become inactive for a while then what good does it to to strip admin privileges? Inactivity certainly doesn't mean you are no longer trustworthy. I used to be an admin here (too lazy to log in), and the one thing it did guarantee is that I would STAY inactive. Of course I'm just harping away here..I don't care enough any more to try and change the policy. It makes absolutely no sense to de-admin jimbo, but it makes no less sense than it did to de-admin most of the other people who have been through this page. And it's not like wikibooks has a huge abundance of contributors either. -129.97.58.55 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  The reasoning is explained in depth in the discussion surrounding the enacting of the policy. In brief, the tools are meant to be used; adminship is not a trophy; and Wikibooks changes greatly over the span of a year. There's no need to have +sysop to contribute, so I don't see how de-adminship would guarantee that you remain inactive, nor how it might reduce the number of contributors to the project. The community thinks that this is of net benefit to the project (though consensus can change).  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 05:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• When people do things "just because it's policy" then we're in a bit of a mess. Policy is all well and fine but common sense is needed. --ЗAНИA ^talk 19:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So, we should ignore accepted policy because he's famous? Or because he can grant himself any rights he wants, so we should ignore policy in this instance? If it is something that Brion has requested for himself, I imagine it isn't without a point. Webaware ^talk 22:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that we should respect the policy. In case Jimbo Wales needs the rights again he should also respect the processes and re-apply for the flags. I don't see any reason why it should be different or this action be interpreted as a lack of consideration. --Panic (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Done by Nick1915.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 23:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)