Testwiki:Requests for permissions/Archive 3

Requests for adminship

---

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)

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)

---

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)

---

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)

---

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)

---

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)

---

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)

---

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)

---

Template:User3

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)

• Template:Support and very happily indeed - quality worker who is an asset to Wikibooks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Template: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)
• Template: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)
• Template:Support -- Az1568 ^(Talk) 14:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Template: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)
• Template: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)
• Template:Support How come I didn't know about this RFA? Xania ^talk 21:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Support --Panic 22:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Nominations for adminship

---

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)

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)'

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)

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)

---

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)

---

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. -withinfocus 01:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll explain the sysop part in your talk. But on the "consensus" bit, can you point me to definition of "consensus" that doesn't state it as the complete agreement of all parties ?!? (100% in favor or against something), even if a sufficient rebuttal is given that doesn't end the discussion process until all voters/participants agree in all points, in this particular case, until I declare agreement and change my vote. if you don't agree please move this discussion (my posts and yours to Wikibooks_talk:Decision_making/Unstable, txs). --Panic 02:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You have raised an interesting point. The definition of consensus is that all parties agree and one disenting vote means it fails. Until now though it had generally been understood that a good majority was all that was needed. I suggest that voting rules be updated to show that a high majority is needed rather than consensus. Xania ^talk 04:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We really should move this talk to the proper forum, I agree that there needs to be a more clear use of Wikibooks policies and guidelines (it his my view that a large percentage of people don't understand some and don't particularly care, I'll put it bluntly, basic concepts or have even problems interpreting the GFDL). I'll strongly object for a change of that nature, consensus is a very good policy, especially in a situation like we have here at Wikibooks (or other Wikimedia projects), some people with more time and more diplomatic skill could create a power base and control the community evolution, this has already occurred in the past, even to me, so I can't agree with that solution. (Haven't you seen Survivor ?!?, with decisions based on consensus they would probably starve but this method here provides a voice to every one and there are problems with user identification and people voting more than one time). --Panic 04:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to reply, but if you move it, please copy and paste; don't "move". — User:Iamunknown 04:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not the same thing as unanimous agreement. The definition in Wiktionary is only one definition (and not a correct one IMHO.) A single individual should not be able to prevent arrival at consensus. In arriving at consensus all points of view are thoughtfully considered. Then individuals agree to take action based on the discussion. (See w:consensus) has consideration been given to the objection? Yes. --xixtas 13:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion copied to Wikibooks:Staff_lounge#Discussion_on_consensus

Template:User3

Whilst declining my original nom for Admin I did acknowledge that there was ample work to do and few people to do it. So, while watching RC for vandals, I spent (& still spend) quite a bit of time looking for admin material. Xania is the best one I've come across. He has been around longer than me and recently has taken a real interest in matters about the project as a whole. However he is also a real editor with good work in both Cookbook and Wikijunior. I find his approach to be fresh and he has a will to get things done and there is plenty to do (if he realises what he is letting himself in for he may decline but I hope not). There is more than enough work for another active admin to do and I strongly recommend him to you. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Candidate acceptance here - I accept this nomination although I think I have a lot to learn! Xania 20:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Questions & Discussion

• Votes
  • Support -- Experienced RC patroller, always acts in good faith, and is clearly interested in ensuring the success of both wikijunior and wikibooks as a whole. Also active on our IRC channel, so I know he thinks before he acts (he often runs ideas by other wikibookians before implimenting them), and will know where to contact mentors when he needs them. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wholehearted agreement. I would have voted earlier, but I didnt see the nomination. You may have alot to learn, but there are plenty of people around who you can ask for help in a pinch, myself included. Don't be a stranger! --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 04:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Xania has always been friendly, engaging, and engaged in the project. Is willing to work on tedious tasks like RC patrol, is active on the IRC channel, and is willing to ask questions and learn. --Iamunknown 22:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Conscientious. --xixtas 00:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Swift 04:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Panic 03:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. This user is now a sysop. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:User3

This user has previously been nominated for Adminship, a nomination which the user declined. At the time, Iamunknown felt that he was not familiar enough with wikibooks, and did not have as good a feel for the infamous "gray area" that dominates decision-making here. This user has had over 2300 edits here, spread across all the namespaces. He has been very active on staff lounge, in matters of policy, and on VfD. It is my opinion that the user has progressed a large deal since his last nomination, and has proven himself time and time again to be a solid, helpful, and trustworthy wikibookian who would make excellent uses of admin tools. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I humbly accept Whiteknight's nomination. Please feel free to ask any questions. —Iamunknown 01:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - agree with all comments above. Webaware ^talk 04:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - no comments necessary. Xania ^talk 21:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Gets things done. xixtas ^talk 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I thought he already was one (and a good one at that). -- Jim Thomas 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Agree he deserves it. Mattb112885 (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Question - What's this about, and what do you mean by "from my previous edit at [2], thus I own the copyright and add it here" ???? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, what's with the userpage too? Are you aware of what Essjay did (and why he's had all his user rights stripped on all wikimedia projects)?--SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  Whatever Essjay did is irrelevant, it's a good quote and one that people should be mindful of before they edit pages. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  I interpreted that as Iamunknown's clever way of shining a light on hypocrisy. -- Jim Thomas 15:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  heh, agreed, just making sure. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think that even if it's there as a show of support that should have any bearing on whether iamunknown should be made an admin. There are thoughtful and conscientious people who disagree about what should have been done in this case. It was bound to happen eventually that the disparity between someone's real-life and their online persona would ignite this kind of firestorm. I've heard it said that on the Internet, no-one knows you're a dog. This may be the start of the end for that. --xixtas ^talk 00:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, what's with the userpage [...] stripped on all wikimedia projects. Yes, I am aware of that. No, I was not thinking of hypocrisy when I added that image. Essjay used false credentials to leverage himself in content disputes, and that was inappropriate. The statement in that image, however, should be universal. I sometimes feel that I make too hasty of edits, so I added that image to help myself be more aware of my actions.
  • What's User:Iamunknown/Spam/Modules about [...] and add it here. I created that earlier this week when I began thinking about a spammy pages. I came to my senses earlier today, however, decided I should just keep contributing to Herby's excellent and more developed list, realized that it was silly of me to start a whole other one, and requested that my module be deleted via the speedy deletion process. --Iamunknown 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Worthy. --Rob Horning 02:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Positive and seemingly trustworthy contributor. --Remi 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Courteous and Professional. -- Urbane User (Talk) (Contributions) 11:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - A few new tools will serve him well in his many cleanup efforts. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- Keep up the good work! // FrankB 16:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Helps out a lot around here --Dragontamer 23:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Positive contributor --SamEEE 13:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Full support over several weeks. Now a sysop. -withinfocus 13:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:User3

This user has mentioned on occasion that he had no desire to be an admin. It is for this very reason that I feel he is an excellent candidate to have the tools of adminship. This user has proven himself to be very helpful, level-headed, and trustworthy, in the span of 1100 edits to this project in the last 8 months. I feel that this user is likely to decline this nomination, but it is my sincere hope that he does not. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept the nomination with some reservations. I think it might be useful for someone who is primarily Wikijunior focused (like me) to have admin capabilities. --xixtas ^talk 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - if Xixtas wants to do it, then this user has my support. Equally, I understand well why the user might decline. Webaware ^talk 04:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - about time we made this guy an admin! I hope he'll consider doing some RC patrolling on wikibooks in general as well as defending Wikijunior from vandals and others who mean us no good. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I agree that we could use an admin focused on Wikijunior. Wikijunior is actually how I found Wikibooks. -- Jim Thomas 00:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - For reasons mentioned above, he's been of great help already and I'm sure he would use the tools wisely. Mattb112885 (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - a quality contributor who will not abuse the tools and is an asset to WB --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support! - Xixtas has always been a great contributor and would do well with the added tools —Iamunknown 17:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Very active user who certainly fits the description as a "trusted user who will do no wrong". Even if all he does is patrol Wikijunior pages alone, this is something that is very useful to this project. Here, here, on his nomination! --Rob Horning 02:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - A contributor worthy of Admin status. -- Urbane User (Talk) (Contributions) 11:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Full support over several weeks. Now a sysop. -withinfocus 13:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:User3

This user is a long-time user, having over a year and a half of experience, and nearly 5000 edits to his name. He does tend to focus his attention on his book Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book, but a little myopia is perfectly fine in a place like this. He is both trustworty and helpful, even if he tends to focus on his own project and posts on staff lounge less frequently. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept the nomination. I will also be happy to occasionally pitch in on regular admin tasks, though I will also say up front that my myopia does come first. By my reckoning, Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book, still has four or five years worth of work left to do (at the current rate). There are about 350 honors, and we have finished writing up answers for 76 of them in 18 months. -- Jim Thomas 02:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC) aka Jomegat

• Support - this user gets stuck in. Well worth having as an admin. Webaware ^talk 04:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - without reservation. Good contributor and thoughtful --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I hope he'll test out the fancy new tools on the rest of the project, but I think Jim might make good use of the Import tool as well... the creative use of import could help him transform the Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book into a valuable textbook for all young people. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - He's got plenty of experience, has made very substantial contributions, and will no doubt find use in his new tools. Mattb112885 (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - great user to interact with, excellent contributor —Iamunknown 17:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - trusted user who will not do harm. It is always good to expand the pool of administrators if we can identify those who would not abuse the tools, even if they aren't necessarily active in all parts of the project. --Rob Horning 02:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Full support over several weeks. Now a sysop. -withinfocus 13:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:User3

This user is generally active on both staff lounge and VfD, and has had over 2300 edits in his time here. His input is always very helpful, respectful, and insightful. He has been here for nearly a year, and has demonstrated himself to be trustworthy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Decline - I don't believe that I have sufficient experience with WB to be a good admin, and I don't have the time to attain that experience without impacting my already lagging contributions. I'm happy to continue with some of the mindless admin-like work of cleaning up articles and checking images tagged Template:Tl, but would rather not take on any more admin work at present. cheers, Webaware ^talk 04:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nomination declined. Will be archived in a few days. -withinfocus 13:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:User3

Template:User3

I've been hoping to bring Matt here for quite sometime now (that says something!). In my view he is almost the ideal admin. He interacts with folk in a very positive way. He deals with the boring tasks like tagging and cleaning happily. He picks up on stray queries and helps where he can and he patrols RC. This is someone I would completely trust with the tools and I ask that you support this nomination. Thanks -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Acceptance - I humbly accept, I've thought about it for a while, and would mostly use the tools for deleting junk and redirects that are no longer needed (there's lots of them out there). Mattb112885 (talk to me) 19:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support - Thanks for all your great work with the NC fixes. --AdRiley 20:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support - The tools will serve us well in his hands. --Jomegat 21:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support - Already doing the job, will no doubt be more effective with the tools. Webaware ^talk 23:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support as nom and with confidence --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support -- definitely :) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support I've been interested in nominating matt for some time now. I am very happy he accepted the nomination, and I think he will make a great admin. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support --Panic 15:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I trust Matt and think that he will be an excellent administrator. --Iamunknown 19:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support - has been a big help with cleanup – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 22:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Done 9 support votes, no opposition or reservations. This user is now a sysop. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:User3

Mike has been working on the first aid book (among other things), and should definitely have access to import, be able to do history merges, etc. He doesn't have a lot of edits in the Wikibooks: namespace, but from his (long) history here I'd say he's definitely trustworthy, and the tools will be very useful to him as he works on the first aid book (he vandal patrols a bit too). I'll happily "mentor" him vis-a-vis the use of the tools and WB policies (I have mentored before on Wikiversity). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Accept: I accept this nomination and promise to use these powers for good, not evil :P Specifically, importing edit histories for stuff I 'stole' from WP last week. I should clean up my own mess. Mike.lifeguard 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support - Mike has done an excellent job on the First Aid book. --Jomegat 19:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support - He a goodie not a badie. Good job so far. Xania ^talk 22:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support - Legit need for the buttons. --xixtas ^talk 23:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support (as nominator) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 08:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support - will make good use of those buttons. Webaware ^talk 08:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support I really think we are reaching a point in our history where adminship can be given to more people then just the elite few users who do super-human work around here. A user like Mike.lifeguard who is hard-working, trustworthy, and experienced should be given the tools, both for his own empowerment, and also to ease the burden on other admins. The people who are the most productive authors tend to need the most admin-tool-help of anybody. Mike is a great choice, he does good work, and he will be an asset. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Done I wanted to wait a little bit longer on this one because there were comparatively fewer votes and I wanted everybody to have time to say their piece. After 9 days there are no opposing votes nor opposing sentiments of any kind. User:Mike.lifeguard is now an admin. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:User3

I've been watching the RC feed the last couple days, and one name keeps popping up: Webaware. This user has been diligently performing maintenance tasks at a very high level. He's been dealing with vandalism and spam, tagging images, and generally just working to make Wikibooks a better place. Considering the work he is doing, and the quality with which he has been doing it, it only makes good sense that he should be given the tools to do what he does, better. This is the second nomination of this user, the first time was declined, and I sincerely hope that the community finds him to be as helpful as I have found him to be. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Accept Webaware ^talk 02:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

- and thanks to all for your support. Webaware ^talk 23:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support - Enthusiastically! --Jomegat 03:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support - = D --Az1568 ^(Talk) 04:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support - Looks good --Krischik ^T 07:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support Ooooh now I'm peeved! How many times did I ask..... Great user, good interaction with others, well trusted. Strong support here (& he can get his own back <g>) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support! - Very positive contributor to the project, and should certainly have the buttons available should they come in handy. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 08:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support - Certainly fits the definition of a "trusted user" that is required for adminship. And has come to know Wikibooks policies. I don't see a problem here, and we can certainly use more admins. --Rob Horning 11:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support - has the full trust of the community clearly and about time he was given admin functions. Xania ^talk 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support --AdRiley 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hurray, you accepted this time! =D Webaware is definitely a "trusted" user, is very active, and will be a benefit to the project as an administrator. I endorse Whiteknight's nomination. --Iamunknown 19:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support - Im surprised Webaware's not an admin already. Mattb112885 (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support --xixtas ^talk 23:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support --Panic 05:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Seven days of all positive votes. Webaware is now a sysop. -withinfocus 21:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for de-adminship

The below administrators / bureaucrats have been inactive for one year or longer besides a few spare edits. These users have been contacted on their talk page as well as e-mailed if possible to inform them of this process. All users listed below will have their sysop rights removed on 21 Dec 2006 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 03:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

User:TUF-KAT has already been alerted, and has stated he accepts this on my talk page. I have sent messages to User:Aya on his wikipedia and meta account pages during the last de-adminship, and have not yet heard a response (i think he is MIA). I thought I had sent messages to the others as well, but I can't seem to find record of that so I will send them again. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A request for de-adminship for these users has been made at Meta. -withinfocus 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The below users have had their rights removed. This will be archived shortly. -withinfocus 16:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Aya (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 31 October 2005.

Dysprosia (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 9 October 2005. If you believe this de-adminship to be mis-judged or too soon, please discuss below.

TUF-KAT (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 23 September 2005. This user has already been contacted regarding de-adminship and has no objections.

KelvSYC (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 14 October 2005.

Discussion

• I strongly oppose setting this precedent. I resent that this is being done without consensus. I am disillusioned that admins, who "are just regular users with some additional restrictions lifted," are subject to de-adminship without egregious error as reasoning. I think that old outlying edits are a poor circumstance for de-adminship. I oppose de-adminship until discussion is encouraged and consensus is reached. --Iamunknown 01:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• I understand your points and agree that inactive admins shouldn't be removed. The only concern I have is with the fact that inactive accounts could be compromised without the real user knowing. This is a slim possibility but still possible. Xania 02:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That is a real concern. Since all sysop-actions are now revertable, however, is it a valid argument for de-sysopping? --Iamunknown 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• It's not that this is being done without concensus. Concensus was already acheived when we made the current text of Wikibooks:Administrators official. Working on that proposal was a very long and difficult discussion that required lots of compromise on all sides. That policy says that admins who have been absent for more then 1 year can be removed without discussion. If you would like to propose changes to that policy, you are more then welcome, but this isn't the place to do it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Whenever I propose a discussion or a change, I meet a roadblock. What difference would there be here? --Iamunknown 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• If he wants the Admin stuff back, I'd be glad to support a renomination or a rerequest. But in the meantime, I think it is better to play it safe and deactivate old Admin accounts --Dragontamer 02:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This (and the other arguments..so I'm not targeting you) fail to recognise that WB:Rfa is a test of whether or not the community trusts the user to have certain restrictions lifted. In that mindset, there is little reason (except for what Xania pointed out) in my mind why admins should be de-sysoped. --Iamunknown 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

First off, it isn't my intention to confront you with a "road block". If you would like to discuss the issue here that's perfectly fine, but given the current state of policy, I think it would be wrong to assume that the proceedings above will be halted/delayed/abandoned as a result of this discussion. WB:RFA is a test of whether the community trusts a particular user, but that trust is not a blank check, nor a life-time membership into some kind of "admins club". There are plenty of active users around here who are well trusted and who don't become admins, so clearly trust is not the only requirement. The only difference between adminship and some sort of barnstar (besides the fact that people who aren't bcrats can hand out barnstars) is that adminship comes with tools and responsibilities. If the tools aren't put to good use, there is no sense promoting an admin in the first place. If a person is trusted, but doesnt want/need additional responsibility, then send them a "you are great" message and an appropriate barnstar to show that they are trusted and appreciated. Tools are to be used, and if you don't use them, then you don't need to have them. You can be a perfectly trusted member of this community, and have demonstrated no particular need for admin tools.

Another point that is worth mentioning (and one that i'm sure you have noticed) is that things have changed significantly around here in the past few months. Old policies have been deleted, new policies have been created, guidlines have been modified, etc. Who is to say, in the face of this shifting landscape, that a user who was trusted to implement the policies from a year ago can still be trusted to properly interpret and implement those policies today? People who arent here, who aren't familiar with our policies, and who aren't familiar with our community are just as good as people who never came in the first place. Under that reasoning, I would compare users who haven't been here in a year or more to people who never came in the first place, and I am not prepared to have relative "newbies" with admin tools running around. I hope this explains, at least, what my rationale is. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you on many points, but I don't think either of us is right or wrong: our philosophies differ. I will stop disputation here and bring it up at a more appropriate talk page at a later date if I feel so inclined. --Iamunknown 02:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I will note that this is an issue that has been from my perspective beat to death, although surprisingly with "concensus" swinging against culling admins to supporting the culling policies. There is no reason to believe that the "concensus" could also swing back again to allowing admins to remain for awhile longer or to merely keep track of "active" and "inactive" admins. Certainly this would be worth bringing up again for the 4th or 5th time on the Staff Lounge if only to air the issues again. BTW, for myself, I tend to support the idea of admins being a permanent position unless they are overly abusive but that is only weak support. --Rob Horning 17:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

---

The below administrators / bureaucrats have been inactive for one year or longer besides a few spare edits. These users have been contacted on their talk page as well as e-mailed if possible to inform them of this process. All users listed below will have their sysop rights removed on 20 Apr 2007 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 13:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Made request on meta. -withinfocus 14:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rights removed. This discussion will be archived shortly. -withinfocus 15:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:User3

Template:User3

---

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 3 Aug 2007 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.

Two users are in a questionable period of editing and have been listed below. These users also have a large legacy of work here and I'd like to mention them separately. Please say something if you believe their de-adminships are premature or inappropriate. I will not take these as true de-adminships and contact these users until we come to some form of a decision here. Thanks. -withinfocus 01:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a few reservations about User:Karl Wick, partially because of his status as the founder of this project, but also because he has not be completely inactive on the textbook-l mailing list recently. Now I know that the mailing list is not the same as wiki, and the policy doesnt really account for that kind of participation when we are talking about de-adminships. I also wonder if, considering his stature as the founder of wikibooks, if we could keep him on as an "honorary" admin, along with a few other important people such as Jimbo and Brion Vibber. It's a small hangup, and I wont deny that there is a certain amoung of sentimentality involved in it. It should be worth some kind of consideration as to whether we should honor people who have played an important role in this project (but then again, adminship isn't a badge of honor anyway). --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's sort of what I'm getting at. Karl and Mshonle have done some important work in the past and aren't necessarily inactive depending on how you look at it. -withinfocus 02:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay it's this time again. I'll add my usual reservations here about how deadmining should only be used if someone has permanently left the project, done something they shouldn't or asked for their rights to be removed. However if you're going to go through with this deadmining then I don't see how we should keep Karl and MShonle just because they did something great once. "Honourary" adminship just stinks of beaurocracy and goes against the democratic and community spirit of Wikibooks and Wiki projects. Xania ^talk 22:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The first user below has certainly left the project. I've asked for the second two to be discussed here since they could be considered somewhat active and have worked here for some time. This should cover your reservations. -withinfocus 01:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to Xania, I share your concern about honorary adminship just being just another bureaucracy. At the same time, I really feel like there is something that we should do, especially for Karl Wick, that says "we appreciate the work that you have done, and the role that you have played." Of course, it's pretty obvious that adminship is not the correct award for this, but there really isn't anything else. I guess we could give them some barnstars or whatever. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with User:Xania, if people don't want to remove the status just don't propose the users for removal, once the process is started it should be closed and per what was agreed (jut to keep it clean). I make a point in stating that I also like and think this deadmining stuff is as useful as Xania (but not as vocal about this subject... :) --Panic 23:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I'm with Panic and Xania on this one. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The removal of status was proposed because technically these users are inactive. I made my initial comments because someone might want to challenge this viewpoint based on some additional information. So far no one has made any challenge on that point and so these users will all still have their rights removed. Like always (and always forgotten by some users it seems) this is not the place to discuss your opinion of the policy but how to use the policy. If you'd like to say I "want" to have these users' rights removed then that's fine and their names are obviously here, so let's actually discuss their inactivity and not stray from the enforcement of policy. -withinfocus 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Why have my (and others) comments been striken out? You might not feel that this is the appropriate place for discussions about this policy but many will disagree with you. This is the best place to discuss the policy as it concerns the issues on this page. Xania ^talk 19:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a good place to discuss how to implement the policy, but it is not the place to discuss changes to the policy itself. It's like saying that we should discuss changes to our inclusion criteria on a bookshelf, or discussing changes to the featured book system on the bulletin board. This page has a purpose: The promotion and demotion of admins. Discussions which are offtopic here should be removed, just like offtopic content can be removed from any other page. If anything, Withinfocus is being more courteous then most by simply striking the comments, and not deleting them outright.

I don't understand why this is such a sticking point for you, Xania. If people want to change the administrators policy so bad, if it's such an issue that we need to make a big public display about it, then why hasn't a single proposed change been raised on the policy discussion page? Why hasn't the issue been brought up at staff lounge, where prolonged discussion is appropriate?

Now as an alternative, we can use this page as a discussion area for the administrators policy, and then host the admin nominations at Wikibooks:Actual requests for adminship. Then we could redirect Wikibooks talk:Administrators to point to this page. Of course then, we would have people who wanted to discuss the policy at the new page, which would cause us to have to move the process again and again. If you want to propose changes, do it in the right way, in a place where we have the space and where people are likely to participate in it. But making a scene and being disruptive of the process to try and make a point is never beneficial to anybody, and it is clearly not leading to any changes. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, my comment was about keeping Karl's adminship as an "honorary title" (which seems to me inappropriate), and that was also striken. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 00:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've hopefully clarified this below, but again I just put one big strike around the whole discussion. Your comment was of course considered since the de-adminship continued. I'm not striking policy discussion only and the strikes will leave upon archiving. -withinfocus 12:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy for inactivity de-adminship has been around for a little while now and since then all previous discussion of de-adminships has simply been stricken for the temporary period that the Stewards access the page when they look for evidence of the de-adminship. If you look into the archives you will see that no discussion is permanently stricken and just like normal I will remove the strikes before I archive this. I definitely agree with what Whiteknight said about where to discuss policy and this is probably the fourth time you've been reminded here. Currently at the unstable administrators policy we're even discussing the tightening of this inactivity requirement so if you're so against this then it would be wise to make a statement there. Changing the talk system here is a very bad idea in my opinion and I would definitely oppose any "actual adminships" page even though I feel that original suggestion was made rather lightly. -withinfocus 12:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This policy of de-adminship for inactivity has not been without controversy nor have the individuals noted below been even given a minimum of a chance to dispute this change of status.... as has happened in the past. Striking out this conversation as if it is out of order is IMHO out of order by itself, and getting the stewards to step in here as if this is a settled issue is also something that should not be done. In every previous situation here on Wikibooks when somebody... anybody was put up for deadminship, a clear "vote" was done for each user, and the "last non-outlying edit" was something that was done informationally and not to explicitly invoke policy for steward action. To prove this point, I'm nominating Karl Wick for adminship right now, at least to undo the damage. For crying out loud, using this standard we might as well de-sysop Jimbo as well. --Rob Horning 07:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

They have 30 days and have been contacted both by user talk page and e-mail if applicable. None have responded. Nothing is out of order as this is a clear-cut procedure and not a vote, thus I struck the previous discussion so that Stewards see simply a clear mention of the de-adminships on the project. This is I think the third time I've done this so I'm surprised by the explosion all of a sudden. I suggest you read up on policy because you are quite out of date. It is absolutely incorrect that "every previous situation" for de-adminship has had a vote since over ten old administrators have been removed under this system. Maybe you missed all this when it was created but it's been about a year or so and we're working on tightening this at the unstable page. If you're so offended, try making a positive contribution on the policy page and not just fighting it in an inappropriate place. Also, yes, Jimbo would be under this policy except he's a Steward and therefore it's a useless operation. -withinfocus 12:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as so many people are commenting on this page rather than the appropriate discussion page (whereever that is) I think we can safely say that discussions about deadmining are entirely suitable on this page. Please stop removing comments and objecting to other peoples comments just because you think they're in the wrong place. Xania ^talk 16:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:User3

Last non-outlying edit 26 June 2006.

Template:User3

Last non-outlying edit 18 June 2006.

Template:User3

Last non-outlying edit 3 July 2006.

Template:Done - Completed by Stewards today. This should be archived in a few days. -withinfocus 18:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

---

{{{1}}}

Yunzhong Hou 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 Wikibooks policy allow Bureaucrats to only be picked from a pool of existing Wikibook Administrators, so I believe this is enough to have your request to become one closed without a need for a vote. --darklama 04:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Against Bureaucrats are the highest post you can get here. Maybe after a few months of being an Admin and demonstrate you have a grasp of your Admin tools, policy and so forth, you can be a B-Cat. But you aren't even an admin yet. --Dragontamer 04:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Oppose per my comments above --Herby talk thyme 08:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Given the votes casts (by two existing admins) and particularly the policy quoted above this request is closed as failed. --Herby talk thyme 08:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Nominations for bureaucratship

---

I will place comments that are common to both my nominations here rather than repeat them for each one. While I have not been on this Wiki for long some of the tasks I have undertaken have left me with an insight into the work of a number of editors. Recent Changes patrolling shows me both edits and activity of Admins while archiving various pages have shown me past contributions from people. In my time I have notched up a little over 2000 edits and the experience I have had makes me feel able to make these nominations on a sound basis. At present there are a very small number of active bureaucrats and I believe that Wikibooks would be strengthened by these additions. Both are active Wikibookians as well as administrators, an insight into their activity may be seen here [6]. Personally I would ask that if either of these contributors find themselves inactive for a period of six months as administrators that they consider their appointments however my nominations are not conditional on this – it is merely my view on “activity”. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As a general comment, I dont think that the additional responsibilities that a bureaucrat has over an admin are particularly in-demand, and although we do have small numbers of active bureaucrats (just myself and User:Derbeth), I dont know that the project has particular need of more. We spent a good while with only one active bureaucrat before I was upgraded to the position, and since I have been one, there have been less then a dozen new admins, 1 name change (that I know of), and only one or two bot flags handed out. To be fair, it's far more important for new users to get checkuser rights then it is for people to become bureaucrats. I will probably vote for both of these users (if they accept their nominations), but I think it's far more valuable for the project for new checkusers to be nominated then new bureaucrats. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I appreciate the vote of confidence, but we don't really need more bureaucrats right now... we just need more admins, and more "generalist editors" to fix the place up.

OTOH, if the intent of the nomination is to ensure a wide distribution of important tools, and thus avoid creating the impression of a cabal or heirarchy that would be fine: but in that case you want Matt, rather than me, because (as you're probably aware) Whiteknight, Derbeth, and I are in regular contact over IRC, and are usually of the same mind when it comes to administration issues. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

After the removal of several of the currently-inactive bureaucrats, I saw having a third and fourth as not being that big a deal. I also wouldn't have a problem with receiving CheckUser if I thought there were enough users here in support of it. After December I plan on doing some major work here (college is finally over) and am already hunting for new sysops. -withinfocus 02:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Withinfocus ( talk | email | contribs )

Matt has been an active contributor here for longer than many of the people who will be voting on this. He contributes to his own area but also makes thoughtful and constructive contributions to more general matters that suggest consideration and reflection rather that reaction. My recent contact with him has shown him interested and concerned about a number of matters. I am sure that Matt would make a very good bureaucrat and would never abuse his position. I am equally sure he will strengthen the team and I look to the community for support for this nomination. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I accept the nomination. Working on the administration issues that I have, I think my use of this tool will be helpful to the community in future adminships. -withinfocus 02:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Votes

• Support. I don't always agree with matt, but one thing that I can't deny is that he always acts in the best interests of the project. As I pointed out above, I dont think there is a gigantic workload for the current bureaucrats, nor is there any pressing need to promote others to the position. However, it's because there is no real additional responsibilities to be added that I am willing to vote for people. I don't know that I'd cast votes in favor of giving our prolific editors more administrative work to do around here, because I want active editors to add lots of good content. Having a third bureaucrat around will alleviate situations where I or Derbeth don't act to promote an admin, because we have been involved in the nomination process. While this support vote may seem awfully lackluster, I don't mean it to disparage matt in any way: He's an excellent contributor, a hard worker, and a benefit to the wikibooks community as a whole. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I've worked with matt on the Muggles' Guide for some time and appreciate his patience and skill. I personally tend to believe that it is a bad idea to have only two active bureaucrats; having a tie-breaker is always good, and it is my belief that matt is well-suited to the position. Chazz 09:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I don't know how long Matt has been around here, but he knows what he is doing, and I can trust him with these powers. --Dragontamer 15:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Matt's "conservative" approach to new administrators makes him an ideal choice for what I want in a B'crat. He is an obvious choice for this sort of position, and he will use the tools conscientiously and wisely, just as he uses his admin tools. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Matt has proven to be a responsible person and I think he will be a good bureaucrat. --Derbeth ^talk 19:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Not sure why I missed this one. Withinfocus is one of the most active users on Wikibooks and can certainly be trusted. Xania 15:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Panic 03:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I always forget that you aren't already an admin, withinfoucs. You may as well be now. I have no objections, and plenty of support. :) --Iamunknown 05:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This vote is for bureaucratship. I am in fact already an admin. -withinfocus 07:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Well. Then. That explains a lot. I feel foolish. I amend my vote for you as a bureaucratship, then. --Iamunknown 08:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Made bureaucrat. --Derbeth ^talk 12:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

--Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

SBJohnny ( talk | email | contribs )

I have had dealings with Johnny from my earliest days here. It is unlikely that many will use the terms quiet and reserved about his postings however he is an extremely active and dedicated Wikibookian who appears to find time for his pet subject as well as considerable activity in more general areas. He has always been helpful to me with what I'm sure to him are minor and rather silly queries – I appreciated this in an admin and compared to the behaviour of admins in other places we are lucky to have such an administrator here. To those who would point to the period of time he has been an administrator I would ask you to look at the quantity and quality of the work done. I would prefer an active editor who is a little new to someone who is not new and may well be much less active. I strongly commend Johnny's nomination to the community --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Nominee acceptance - I decline, for reasons laid out above. I would support Matt though if he chooses to accept.--SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Votes - Support - very active member with lots of positive edits and very helpful! Xania 22:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:User3

I am nominating User:SB Johnny for bureaucratship. There are currently three bureaucrats on this project, and User:Derbeth has been significantly less active recently. I would like to maintain a situation where there are at least three active bureaucrats, especially for times when there is disagreement among them over administrator promotion (although it is yet to be an issue).

Johnny has made 7800 edits in the 14 months he's been a member here. Just over half those edits have been dedicated to the main module namespace, while the remainder have been made in the talk, discussion, and policy pages. He's been active on VfD, and he's also taken charge in many activities such as the transwiki process, and the uncategorized page logs. Johnny was promoted to admin in August 2006, and since then has been one of our most active, most productive and most helpful staff members. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I Accept-- I'm not sure about the "disagreement over promotion" part, but being able to assist with name changes -- especially in cases where a trusted user from another project arrives on Wikibooks only to find their username was used by a vandal or for personal attacks (I have run into 2 such cases over the last few months) -- would certainly be a job I'd like to help with. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • BTW: I recently switched accounts, so most of my edits and logs are actually using Template:User3 --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Template:Support (must be mad, him not me) but unquestionably support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should say "I trust him" but - to me - that is unnecessary. However I do understand Panic's viewpoint - it the end in a collaborative project we do all need to be able to collaborate --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Template:Support A very competent and skilled wikibookian. Urbane (Formerly Urbane User) (Talk) (Contributions) 18:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Oppose - Edits not withstanding, the only requirement to be made a bureaucrat is that a user must be a active administrator and trusted to understand the policies and guidelines that Wikibooks is built upon, recently SB Jhonny has made some posts that stood very close to personal attacks and were at least as such interpreted by the other user, causing him to expressly state to be discontinuing his active role on the project, more SB Jhonny promotes a certain type of partiality or preemptive action against users and probably not being as diplomatic as it could, I came to know SB Jhonny very well in the past 6 moths more or less, and wile I will not actively seek to get him deamin I will oppose at least for now granting the user more rights.
  I know the user will not find this position unexpected, and not an attack on his integrity as I don't find the user acting in bad faith, I just don't trust his personal judgments and have come to dislike some of his actions, this is not about divergence on several policy matters (divergence to me should be welcomed), but a state of how I see this nomination, considering the text on Wikibooks:Administrators "Creating a new bureaucrat is a more weighty discussion than the creation of an admin". --Panic 19:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  In your oppose vote explanation above I don't find anything explicitly relevant to bureaucrat tools. Before I take action on these votes (in due time), please answer if you have any actual problems with Johnny's use of the makebot, makesysop, or renameuser tools. These are what a bureaucrat really does and that's what I am more interested in hearing opposition to since we have several bureaucrats on the project that can evaluate the possible misuse of these tools. Although the admin policy says this is a more weighty vote, I am much more concerned with tool usage and not Johnny's personal demeanor that some may dislike. Clear-cut and non-lengthy answers, please. -withinfocus 20:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As per your request, I must inform you (and others) that also at the request of SB Jhonny I have exposed the why I mistrust the user (and therefore oppose the nomination) in the page SB Jhonny created for a RFC, on the this specific topic, it is my view that SB Jhonny will not do harm if granted the rights, but since a number of Wikibookians relate increase of access level to a increase of trust, including the nominator, my position will be of opposition, and recorded as so because not only on the facts I have stated before (and others that are also public) but also because the nomination in itself has several problem that I relate to how thinks seem to be coordinated (I know that SB Jhonny before this nomination needed some work done on some of his accounts), I would have been less willing to express my opposition if the user had proposed himself and with proper reasons for it or even in a better tone if User:Derbeth requested or supported it. --Panic 02:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Template:Support - I trust him. -- Jomegat 19:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Support - I also trust him = ) --Az1568 ^(Talk) 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Support - Does good work, shouldn't be a problem. -withinfocus 19:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Oppose - If you want to know why, e-mail me. --Rob Horning 21:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  That's not very fair. Such a thing should be listed here otherwise your oppose vote might have little weight. As a current bureaucrat I would like to have this written below because it could very well change the possible action I might take on this vote. -withinfocus 22:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  No, please, just email him, or we'll have this functional page filled with endless talk as well! Webaware ^talk 23:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  Hahahahahaha no. --Iamunknown 02:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  A brief summary would be useful. It seems unfortunate that that position is taken. --Remi 23:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  I'm with User:Withinfocus on this issue. Wikibooks:Decision making is clear that the quantity of votes is not used to make a decision, but instead the quality of the vote is to be considered. A simple vote of "yea" or "nay" with no explanation carries far less weight then a vote with a rational explanation behind it. It is well known that Rob and Johnny have personal issues with one another, but a personal dispute is hardly a valid reason to prevent a promotion like this. If Rob feels that there is more to this dispute, and that Johnny has broken some kind of policy or displayed an inability to be trusted by the community, then Rob should post that rationale here to help inform the voters. If, however, this is little more then an extension of their personal dispute and some form of revenge against Johnny, then it would be wise for Rob to not post that here. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  Without explanation here I again state that it's not really fair to hold this oppose vote against Johnny. Although support votes need little explanation since they're for the affirmative, I believe oppose votes need proper explanation, just like in any of our voting processes here. If your comments are large enough please add them to the below discussion section and please add at least something, otherwise this vote has little to no weight. -withinfocus 20:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  I find such vote unfair and immature - because it makes the candidate unable to defend himself and treats other participants of this discussion as not worthy enough to receive the true motivation behind the vote. I'm sorry to see Robert Horning using this style of discussion. In my opinion, this is not in wiki-spirit to talk this way. --Derbeth ^talk 20:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  The reason I wrote this is because I knew that I would have to nearly endlessly debate ths whole thing and make this "vote" into something of a diatribe about my concerns regarding Johnny. I simply didn't have the physical time to carry out such a lengthy discussion, and I knew it would be opening up old wounds as well that were better left alone. Also, if you wanted to know my reasoning, it isn't that hard to send an e-mail to respond to specific questions and points. Why is that "not in wiki-spirit"? --Rob Horning 10:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  In my understanding, wiki-spirit means that we discuss all things openly and together. Isolation, discussing things secretly in small groups should not be the rule. Also, requiring all other fellow-disputants to e-mail you in order to get explanations a kind of disrespect. --Derbeth ^talk 10:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Template:Support - I trust him too. I don't believe he shows partiality, although he can show his irritation at times (who wouldn't?) and I don't blame him for that. He'll use his new powers only for Good, not Evil. Webaware ^talk 23:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

*Neutral. I have full confidence in SBJohnny and have always believed that he is a very trustworthy and competent Wikibookian. I am withholding my vote for now because it is a clear that a few other active members may have a problem with such a situation - it really is nothing personal and I will happily change my vote if I feel that more of the community are behind this. Xania ^talk 23:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Template:Support I have full trust in SBJohnny and he has shown exceptional ability to address issues and problems when other administrators might have just given up. Xania ^talk 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• neutral Template:Support. I like and trust SB_Johnny, I think he is a valuable contributor. I am concerned about a certain situation where instead of seeking reconciliation he has opted toward escalation. I'm not convinced that we need another bureaucrat, and there are some questions in my mind about whether granting this additional privilege will result in an escalation of existing conflict. --xixtas ^talk 14:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

<added later>While we have been discussing, SB_Johnny has demonstrated good faith efforts to address my concerns. Whiteknight has convinced me that having another bureaucrat is desirable. Because of this I would like to change my opinion and support SB_Johnny's nomination as bureaucrat. --xixtas ^talk 19:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)</added later>

• • Promotion to bureaucrat doesnt really entail any additional responsibility or authority, as the name implies it's mostly a position of bureaucracy. Wikibooks also has a history of bureaucrats who have been very reserved in the excercise of their abilities, a precidence that Johnny is fully aware of. I am convinced that we do need an additional bureaucrat, and i'll try to explain (briefly) why. If you look at this particular nomination, I am not able to make the promotion because I made the nomination. User:Derbeth has been inactive for a month now, and so it is unlikely that he will be making the promotion either. This means that on the entire project, the only person who is available and capable of performing the promotion (should the community vote to promote him) is User:Withinfocus. Considering that I myself have made a majority of the recent admin nominations recently, and Derbeth has been decreasing his activity for some time now, you can see the additional pressure that is being placed on User:Withinfocus to make these promotions. An additional bureaucrat would help to spread the work load, and account for times when Withinfocus is absent or on vacation or something. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • With respect - Derbeth has not been inactive for a month now. He (& others of us) may not appear in the public forums as much however it does not mean that he is not working. If you examine the block log you will find that his admin activity has arguably been higher than anyone else on this project recently --Herby ^{talk thyme} 05:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I've seen some of Derbeth's IP block marathons, and the speed of them strikes me as being more indicative of a bot or other automated tool then of actual human interaction. I'm certainly not saying anything negative about Derbeth, but you are right in your clarification that he hasn't been active in public forums recently. Public forums are typically the kinds of places where a person would ask for help from a bureaucrat. Derbeth has been busy with his real life and I have the utmost respect for that, but at the same time it does highlight the problem that the absence of a single bureaucrat on this small problem can put undo pressure on the remaining two (especially with my inclination to nominate people for promotion). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • There is a perception that this increase in privileges carries an increase in status. Since there is that perception, there is an increase in status (status is all about perception). Things that user says carry more weight and flaming out on a page in user space gains more significance than it should. It is a close call for me, but in the end I think that extending additional privs to SB_Johnny at this time might escalate a standing conflict between admins and I can't say that I think that is a good idea. --xixtas ^talk 12:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
      • That's a little odd. For one thing, a "bureaucrat" is a "sysop" with two extra tools to help people, not some godly status thing. For another, I tend to rank people by their actions, not by some title they've claimed or been promoted into. There is a wide variety of people with "sysop", and I'd rank several of them as not being worthy of such a "title" were I to take your view on the access to wiki tools. Webaware ^talk 13:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Usually I bite my tongue but "hey it's Sunday". Agreeing with all that Webaware says. It is not the title but what you do with it that counts. In passing the "inactive" 'crat is busy getting on with the job in hand according to the current logs rather than talking about it - speaking of which actual work calls --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
        • "...godly status thing." - In my opinion, when you restate an opposing viewpoint it is more civil to fairly and calmly present the actual position stated rather than to restate it with loaded words and extreme views that were not originally expressed. --xixtas ^talk 15:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
          • This is getting weird... I'm hoping that Herbythyme has this right, because I don't understand where I was either uncivil or not calm. Perhaps you are bringing more baggage to the discussion than is otherwise apparent. I simply meant that bureaucrat is an ability to do more work for others, not an invitation to feel smug about having a title. Some people here seem to think that being a sysop is a means to being smug about having that "title", whereas it appears to me that it entails the responsibility to actually help people out a lot. Were SB_Jonny to become a bureaucrat, his responsibilities would increase (marginally, only two new tools!). The greater mass of contributorsauthors on this project wouldn't even know about it, thus preventing any elevation in their admiration of him. But maybe I'm wrong, having too much bark in front of me to be able to clearly see the deforestation. Webaware ^talk 00:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Interesting, "Some people here seem to think that being a sysop is a means to being smug about having that "title"..." That's a strange accusation. Would you care to elaborate? Who is being smug about his or her title? --xixtas ^talk 23:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I strongly agree with xixtas on this... can we not be flip, please? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I do agree however can I just point out that English is an easily misunderstood language. Webaware & I have in common the fact that we are not from the USA and I think our postings are sometimes seen in a way that we had not intended (of course we do tend to see your postings in a similar way sometimes). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I agree with Herby here, Webaware wasnt accusing anybody of being smug, he was saying that people assume admins will be smug about new powers. It's a common fear, everybody assumes that every admin promotion will create a person with more authority or more "power", when that isnt the case, historically. Nobody is smug, but everybody worries about potential smugness. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Support He have enoght expirence, is interestet in the Interwiki coordination and a projekt from this size needs 3-4 bureacrats. --Sundance Raphael 22:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Support - --Remi 03:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Support - I've appreciated his role in working to address problems in the past, and having read a lot of what he has written, find him to be a responsible member of the community. James Dennett 21:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Support. An active and helpful Wikibookian, in whom I trust greatly. Kind regards, Celestianpower 23:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Why the Hell not? (or some corollary thereof) --Iamunknown 02:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments/Discussion

I generally don't think it's a good idea for a "candidate" to respond to objections, but I suppose I should in this case, because I think "candidate" is a term we as a community tend to take the wrong way (if you want to see how bad it can get, see the mess Wikipedia has made of the tool-giving process).

The bureaucrat tools do two things: (1) you can make someone a sysop after it's clear that there is general consensus that they receive the tools, and (2) you can change a username to another username. Abuse of these tools would of course be very bad for the project (imagine a rogue b'crat giving sysop tools to serial vandals and/or changing usernames against the wishes of the user!), but I can't imagine anyone thinks I would do that :). The term "bureaucrat" was probably chosen to avoid political connotations, but it's perfectly understandable that usergroup membership is interpreted by the community to mean "a step up on the ladder", because in some ways it is, but we should (IMO) try not to extend that metaphorically in political terms.

I strongly believe that changing someone's usergroup should not be interpreted politically. Being an admin, checkuser, b'crat, or steward doesn't make anyone more important... all it's about is giving someone access to tools, and we ask for community input so that any who feel that the user would abuse the tools should be pointed out and denied access to them. Panic is uncomfortable about how I use a particular administrator's tool (the block tool), but I'm quite certain that he knows I would never use the b'crat tools in a harmful way. Robert is uncomfortable with me because of things I say, but that has nothing to do with the tools (admin, CU, or b'crat).

So, I find myself in a funny position here, answering my own concerns: If I was a b'crat trying to interpret consensus on this particular nomination, I would want to hear from the "candidate" (I really wish there were a better word!) about the nays and the neutrals, because the neutrals in particular express trust, but also reservations because of other issues. It's actually a bit of a bind, because the expressed objection doesn't seem to have direct bearing on the tools in question, and the unexpressed one is, well, unexpressed (though I think the reason is pretty much common knowledge). It's an interesting conundrum, and were I in a position to make someone a bureaucrat, I'd say "no" right now... not because of the oppose votes, but because of the neutrals.

As an aside: I really think we should move towards a subpage schema for out RFAs (and VFDs), so that there can be a talk page... I would rather have put this there! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to this from both Rob and Panic is completely expected, considering your history with those users. Likely if I were up for promotion to bureaucrat right now those same users would object to my promotion as well. Fortunately, besides the hypothetical objections, I think that i have proven to be a decent bureaucrat. I would say that neither I nor either of the other bureaucrats have ever demanded additional respect or authority (or even received them without demanding). If people appreciate Withinfocus, Derbeth, or myself more then other users it's because we have been here for a long time and because we are helpful and knowledgeable.

There are a few important points that I think some people are missing. First and foremost all wikibookians are likely to have personal disputes with other wikibookians, and that doesnt mean that we shouldnt promote anybody. Second, we do need to maintain a continuous influx of new admins to both fill in the gaps from old admins who leave our project and to help keep a grip on this place as it gets larger. People always have some kind of fear that the granting of various admin tools will give a user undue political power, but I think the track record has shown precisely the opposite. If anything, promotion to admin or bcrat tends to give the recipient greater respect for the responsibility they have, and many wikibookians have risen to a higher level of participation because of it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear User:Whiteknight, I wouldn't object to you being made a bureaucrat, I have not seen any faults on your actions, I may have divergences with you. We may see problems in a different way mostly where we still haven't got a clear community consensus, and some points I don't agree with you just on the logic of how you see things, consider the way you value access rights as a status or an honorific granted to a user, I don't share your vision in that regard and find it very dangerous, I also have problems on how you face every divergence of views and have yet to see you change your mind on any subject and be willing to accommodate different opinions.

As for SB Jhonny the problem I expressed on my vote is clearly stated, even in the problem with Robert he has gone out of his ways to "cause" the problem, since it was up to you to state any problem directly, if his intention was to offer a comment he could have done it in a better way (and this is not the first time he takes action when he is not requested or required to), causing more troubles than he seems to be attempting to address, this is why I don't see the user acting in bad faith but to easily engage in validating damaging actions only on his personal judgment.

The other problem is the level of coordination I (and others) can see in several users, that indeed constitutes a power group inside Wikibooks, intentionally or not. The close relation, self support and self promotion, some times against logic or site policies not only constitutes a danger to the community but if not addressed will in time kill the project. -Panic 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Panic, I just had an edit conflict with you (becoming a habit! :P). I didn't intentionally escalate things with Robert... quite the contrary, I was hoping to move towards offering a way for those who have been venting (fire, brimstone, tar, and feathers) "off the record" to just say their peace, let Robert respond, and talk about it together so we could avoid future misunderstandings (and "misunderstandings" are the alpha and omega of the issues I and others have with him).

You are also completely correct about the coordination of efforts, and if you think I personally have played a central role in that, you're correct there too, but only in the sense that I try to encourage people not to get into public fights on-wiki (Robert refuses to answer my emails, which is why you see me going at him full-bore: I'm even meaner to those who you see as my "friends", but they fight with me in private, as it should be).

And you, of all people, should know why I'm interested in this tool. I did not block your playful sockpuppets, I only asked you to be careful about how you named them; Remember? You know me pretty well, and knowing me as you do, do you understand how I could use the name-changing tool to benefit the project? And do you really, honestly think I would ver use the makesyssop tool in a bad way? (And before you answer that, remember also the favor I asked of you when Darklama's RFA was open!) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think anyone who speaks frankly (or in my case "tactlessly" might be a better term :P) is going to have a hard time getting "voted in" to a position with "political importance" (in quotes again because I don't see it that way, and really wish no-one else did!), but there's really nothing wrong with being vocally opinionated. I've never (and would never) used any admin tools in a dispute, and never in any way contrary to what I felt was the general consensus. I have a hard time believing that anyone (including both Panic and Robert) would think I would use the tools for any reason other than the benefit of the project, and deciding when the tools in question here are to be used is *much* more cut-and-dry than the other tools I have (particularly block and checkuser!): makesysop is used when there is clear support for a nominee, and usernames are changed only at the request of the user who's name is to be changed.

We're (hopefully) going to get more name change requests, as people from other projects arrive on wikibooks, and may unfortunately find their names already "taken". I haven't caught any of these recently, but a few months ago some rather slanderous vandal accounts were being created here on wikibooks using the names of Wikipedian administrators, and until SUL (Single User Login... sorry for the jargon) comes into play, we're still vulnerable to this sort of nonsense, because most wp admins pay no attention to Wikibooks (come to think of it, I think I'll leave a note about this on their Admin Noticeboard). There might also end up being a massive dumping of workload for local b'crats when SUL is finally ready to go, because usernames held by different people on different projects might need to be fixed locally (I hope not, to be honest, but I can't really see any other way for them to do this). We might need more b'crats if my worst nightmare about this comes to pass. For now though, I'm definitely the best "candidate" to be a b'crat (as far as name-changing is concerned), precisely because I'm a "well-known element" on our sister en projects, and therefore the one most likely to recognize that a vandal account is named after a prominent contributor on another project (I doubt I will have much use of the makesyssop tool unless Derbeth and/or Withinfocus really did go MIA).

This is a tool I can use for the benefit of "prospective" Wikibookians. The stress level on Wikipedia is truly alarming, and I hope that I might be able to entice more of the "jaded majority" to come help us write books. That is the only sense in which I want the "power" that's associated with the b'crat tools: not because it gives my voice added authority, but because I can say "no problem, I can fix that for you!" While I know most will disagree, I still think our best bet for making our project grow is to recruit those wikipedians who really believe in the idea of providing free, correct, and useful content... by the time they're jaded on wp, they most likely have been made "true believers", and IMHO what we need most around here are true believers. --SB_Johnny | ^talk; 19:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain the idea behind this? It's been deleted now but this was probably one of Robert's reasons for the oppose vote. And also possibly User talk: Robert Horning. Xania ^talk 21:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I will explain, but with the caveat that I don't think this is the proper place to explain it (and I will undelete it so people know what we're talking about... it was deleted out of process, but with good intentions, I'm certain). That was a "working page" (thus in my userspace), partially to test out a template for user-conduct RFCs, and partly just to get my thoughts together about why Robert has been driving me up a wall lately. My two aims were closely linked, because I felt that the best way to see how the template should be structured was to just use it, and it was a good time to test out the template because I really felt the need to use it. It was thrown off a bit when you commented on it, because it then ceased to be "my experiment" and became "public domain".

What I'm trying to come up with is a good template for "requesting comments", and a design for the template that encourages constructive criticism.

What I was hoping to achieve with the me/Robert situation was to provide some sort of good forum where those who were angry with him could just say what was making them angry, but in a semi-formal forum so that it would be a "point-by-point" discussion that Robert (or anyone else in the future) could read, think about, and respond to.

I've had a hard time communicating with Robert... he has on 2 occasions sent me very long emails, and on both occasions I have replied, but he didn't reply to my replies. I have, however, made it clear (by saying so, both via email and on wikibooks when he's brought it up) that I don't want him to leave the project, so I assume that the message on your (Xania's) talk page was about unnamed others.

To be frank, I've also had a hard time with a lot of other people not communicating well with Robert, because they bitch and moan to me using other venues, rather than just speaking their peace and assuming that Robert will have the good faith to respond to them respectfully. That is why I wanted an RFC... backchannel bitching has it's place, but the issues will never be resolved unless people talk to each other.

Without Robert's input "on the record", I hope he'll forgive me for venturing a guess: Robert believes I am a dangerously influential member of a dangerously influential cabal. I'm not sure how to respond to that, because I do try to keep in touch with people, but it's only because this community has been horribly fractious for a horribly long time, and I feel that those wish to have a stake here should negotiate their differences (or at least agree to disagree) "off-wiki" rather than having public blow-ups on talk pages. And maybe more important: active Wikibookians should get to know each other, because a common desire to create free textbooks is a great basis for being friends. If there is a "cabal", the membership requirements (at least as far as I'm concerned) are pretty simple: a desire to get more contributors and more books.

But here's the caveat I mentioned: my issues with Robert have nothing to do with the b'crat tools. My issues with Robert aren't even about the goals of Wikibooks. My main issue with him about the admin tools is that he threatened to use them against consensus, and that is something I cannot easily forgive, because using admin tools against consensus is a serious breach of trust. My other issues with him have nothing to do with admin tools (his or mine). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I will state here for the record that the primary reason for an objection to having Johnny become a bureaucrat is mainly for this to be seen as an endorsement of his actions toward me to kick me off this project and his very deliberate and personal attacks against me. While we don't really have a formal "no personal attacks" policy, I have seen both Johnny and others here on Wikibooks make a very pointed attempt to cut off discussion in this manner. No, I don't like it at all.

Other than these attacks and flamewars, I havn't seen any explicit actions on the part of Johnny that are disruptive to Wikibooks, and certainly I am not seeking deadminship for Johnny's account, which is something I would seek if he seemed to be as dangerous as he seems to think I am. His "request for comments" as a way to deal with me as a "problem user" also seemed to be something very much out of line, even if he is explaining it away as a mere "experiment". I think it fits his secretive manner to try and keep light away from discussing issues but rather form a political agenda.

As far as my "threats" to use admin tools in some ways that Johnny has objected to, I believe that he is mistaken on a very critical issue: Admins not only have the right but the duty to reverse the actions of other admins when either something is heavily misunederstood (as was the case with the VideoJug threats of deletions.... and don't tell me that you were talking abstractly here Johnny). Particularly when such actions are against explicit project policy. It is also reasonable that some exceptions to policy can also be made in the interest of trying to encourage new users and to help grow this project.

That there is some ill will between Johnny and I should be apparent to the rest of the community, and it doesn't look like we will be able to constructively get much accomplished together. I hope Wikibooks is a large enough project that it doesn't matter if a couple of users are pissed at each other.

The only real major problem that can happen with a "rogue bureaucrat" is that they can stack the list of admins to favor their point of view and limit access to those with an opposing viewpoint. My concern with Johnny here to become a bureaucrat is that he hasn't shown the flexability to consider viewpoints other than his own and to encourage a diversity of voices within the Wikibooks community. I'm hoping that he will show some increased maturity here and not continue the adolecent behavior I have seen lately. --Rob Horning 15:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What actions has SB_Johnny taken that were attempts to get you kicked off of the project? How could such a thing even be accomplished? I don't understand. --xixtas ^talk 15:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with xixtas in that confusion. While it's no doubt that johnny doesnt like you, i've never seen him make a concerted effort to try and have you removed from the project or deadmined or anything like that. Even his RFC didn't propose either of those options. For the record i believe that Rob has accused me (often indirectly) of the same offenses and even more. People are allowed to disagree without an underlying assumption that one of the people are trying to have the opponent removed from the project. People are even allowed to get really angry at each other without making the assumption that either one of them has to leave here forever. And when mentioning relative maturity levels around here, a lot of finger pointing could be made in both directions. It's best not to even bring that subject up at all, i think. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made it clear to Robert both on talk pages and via email that I don't want to run him off the project. I do wish he would rethink some of the things he's done lately. The RfC in my userspace was both an experiment and an expression of my concerns... the best way to come up with a structure for a user-RFC is simply to make one, in order to see what kinds of things the template should ask about in order to be helpful for someone who wishes to write one. And I do think it might be a good thing for all of us to eventually do that in the WB namespace, as a forum for all those concerned to express their concerns and praise for Robert, and replace the current sniping with a cool-headed, positively-oriented discussion. Roberts comments on this page are exactly the sort of thing I wish he would rethink... anyone who knows me at all (even Panic!) would know that I would never abuse these tools. I do understand both Panic's and Robert's desire not to give my "voice and position" any more credence, but frankly my voice isn't going to be taken any more or less seriously depending on whether I have access to these two tools.

It's rather unrealistic to say that the B'crat tool could be used to "stack the list of admins". The makesysop tool is used only after a request has been open for a week, and there seems to be general consensus that the nominee/requestor will use the tools in a positive way. The makesysop tool is also only effective in the positive... it can't be used to prevent people from becoming sysops (only stewards can do that). And, again, user's viewpoints aren't made any more important just because they have a few extra buttons. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't belabor this point too much further, but you have indeed suggested explicitly that you would prefer that I no longer participate on Wikibooks. That aside, I would like to point out as well that rogue bureaucrats have appeared on other Wikimedia projects (mainly non-Western European language projects that tend to not get the same level of review by WMF board members). This "vote stacking" is a very real issue that has polarized several projects and has driven many potential contributors away. Cleaning up these projects takes some sort of outside intervention that even the cure is often worse than the problem in the first place.

All this said, I hope that you use your current tools with maturity and care as you claim you will. While I have opposed your nomination, I'm open to the possibility that you may be a positive influence on this project and that you will be receptive to the idea that admin nominations for people whose ideas you don't always agree with can be acceptable as well. It is far better that we take care of our own in terms of appointing admin status within Wikibooks than having to obtain that status via stewards. --Rob Horning 09:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(reset tabs)Actually, I'll just put my money where my (loud) mouth is. This one ain't in a userspace :). Wikibooks:Requests for Comments/SB_Johnny

• Reading this page and responding to silly points about status have chewed up what little time I had available to contribute something to this project this morning. I resolve not to look at this page again, so that I can feel smug about getting some actually useful contributions made to the project next time I have time to come here. You guys must have too much time on your hands, if you can put this much effort into endless talking and make useful contributions to the project and have a life outside of wiki. Webaware ^talk 00:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "life outside of wiki"? you must be very mad sir! I've got two computers set up right next to each other, and I do work on one. If i dont take a break every now and then to participate in something less serious, i might go completely crazy. This silliness is very therapeutic. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel I have to explain some things here. Yes, I've been inactive for some time and this unfortunately won't change until the summer holidays. All mass-blocking actions were made by me using a semi-automatic tool. The university takes a great deal of my time and it's hard for me to engage myself in anything more that ad-hoc fixes. I am simply unable to take part in long-term disputes. Talking about this particular vote, I think that it might be a good idea to have two truly active bureaucrats on the project. I have always considered SBJohnny a reasonable person working hard to improve Wikibooks and we've always cooperated well. The only reason I haven't expressed my support here is that some users have accused SBJohnny of personal attacks and I haven't had time to read the hot disputes that caused these complaints and judge who is right. I feel that it would be something wrong to vote before gaining confidence that SBJohnny has always acted properly. Nonetheless, I wish SBJohnny all the best as I don't believe he might break Wikibooks rules. --Derbeth ^talk 20:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your votes. I have thought about the matter as well as discussed some things with my fellow bureaucrats, and Johnny is now a bureaucrat. This discussion will be archived shortly. -withinfocus 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for CheckUser rights

---

Uncle G (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Uncle G is a long time sysop of Wikibooks and is really devoted to site cleanup. He fights vandals, deletes rubbish and is active on the project. I don't know him personally, so I think he would be good person to control my CheckUser activity. I hope he will be accepted by the community of Wikibooks. --Derbeth ^talk 21:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I plan to be very strict about user privacy. Uncle G 23:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've come back to this discussion after a period of absence, to find to my surprise that it is still going! Uncle G 15:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. --JMRyan 21:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Dragontamer 21:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Athrash | ^Talk 22:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• He'll get my support as soon as he accepts the nominations. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 23:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I already accepted it on my talk page. ☺ Uncle G 23:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Gentgeen 07:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Krischik ^T 10:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Xerol Oplan 11:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --kwhitefoot 11:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Rob Horning 14:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  Oppose -- I guess a vote that was cast over 7 months ago can be reviewed. This opposition is mainly due to inactivity, and that other strong candidates seem to be coming forward. Uncle G certainly has done some good things on Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 09:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support -Matt 17:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  Oppose - User has become inactive and we need a constant contributor here to perform CheckUser look-ups. -withinfocus 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Derbeth ^talk 18:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  Oppose 4 months of inactivity. --Derbeth ^talk 20:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Kernigh 21:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Gabe Sechan 22:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Guanaco 03:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Weak oppose. I would support, but I don't think we need anyone with checkuser at this time.
• Support. We need people who are better equipped to fight vandals. Vandalism isn't a huge problem here yet, so we don't need many users with these permissions, but we can pick some of the most active and trustworthy people off the top of the list, and let them get used to the new privledges. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 05:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Decent editor. Seems trustworthy. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. Just to indicate that I am aware of this potentially useful tool – and hope never to witness the need for it. David Kernow 20:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Hagindaz 13:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Uncle G is one of our chief caretakers (and has been for some time), I see nothing wrong with giving his broom some new bristles. :) Garrett^Talk 04:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support RobinH 12:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kellen ^T 10:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Junkeater 19:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Junkeater 19:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC) /
• Support - I've seen Uncle G in action on WP, and he seems quite trustworthy and dedicated, which pretty much sums up my list of qualifications for someone holding this tool. SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawing my vote due to inactivity (neutral, not opposing). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support AlbertCahalan 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Could not achieve in almost a year's time. Stagnated and thus failed. -withinfocus 02:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Cspurrier ( talk | email | contribs )

I am an admin here, EN Wikinews, and Meta. I am also a bureaucrat and member of Arbcom with checkuser access on EN Wikinews. I know I am not the most active member of Wikibooks, so I will not be offended in the least if you choose to vote against me because of that. While I do not edit here as much as I would like, I do monitor the RC IRC feed regularly, so I will be able to respond to requests promptly. I already have checkuser on Wikinews, so I understand the technical use of the tool and privacy concerns that go with it. --Cspurrier 00:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Good intentions, but I believe that we will have enough use of the tool with the above three editors. I am considering removing my support vote for Uncle G due to his recent inactivity and I think the other two nominated will definitely provide enough support for the tool themselves. I don't see the need for more than a couple CheckUsers right now. -Matt 21:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  I'll go with Support now that I've removed my vote for Uncle G. You're active here and can help. -withinfocus 20:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with matt. You certainly have good intentions, and I appreciate that. However, we only need about 2 or so users with checkuser rights, and with so few, we need those users to be active. However, the fact that you already have the privledge on another wikimedia project is a valuable thing for us here. When we get our first few checkuser admins around here, your experiance will probably come in handy, if you are willing to share it with us. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 17:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support AlbertCahalan 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Could not achieve in several months' time. Stagnated and thus failed. -withinfocus 02:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

AlbertCahalan ( talk | email | contribs )

Not that I expect to use this, but really, all admins should get this right. Abuse is unlikely. What are we worried about, some DoS attack or hacking into a machine? Yeah, sure, like an admin is going to a giant botnet on somebody. The 25 votes is completely nuts outside of the English Wikipedia. AlbertCahalan 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Could not achieve in several months' time. Stagnated and thus failed. -withinfocus 02:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Herbythyme (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Please note Checkuser rights on this wiki are really sought for vandal fighting. It enables vandal fighter to see where a user logs in from (their IP address) and look at other edit activity/user creation activity from that IP. Due to the rules on the vote there must be 25 users in favour of these rights being granted so every votes really does count.

This addition to admin rights would enable me to take a more proactive approach to vandalism and my only interest in these rights is to help this fight. While I do not have the length of experience that some admins do much of it has been spent vandal fighting in order to help preserve the integrity of Wikibooks. I am an active admin who will block vandals without hesitation however all my actions are in the public view and I will respond with thought to anyone who wishes to question any action of mine. A minor issue is that I operate in a different timezone to others and this might help speed up vandal fighting if there were a spread of admins with these rights. As with my Admin nom I will request the removal of this tools should I be inactive for a period of three months as an admin. I request a checkuser check to be performed on my account as I feel it is important for someone seeking trust to be seen as being above board themselves. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Confirmation of checkuser status
  • Clean. --Derbeth ^talk 14:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Discussion
  • Comment. I do think it's a good idea to have more checkusers, especially since User:Derbeth and I haven't been nearly as active recently as we were when we were nominated for the permissions. As i've said before and I'll say again, I am generally against giving our active contributors more work to do around the project (I would much rather people were contributing!). However, the checkuser rights don't necessarily increase the workload, and it would actually reduce your need to constantly ask for checkuser checks on WB:VIP or our user talk pages. I'm going to vote for you, and I sincerely hope that other people do the same. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Votes

Support: I vote for Herby for his stance on enforcing policies. No mercy for spammer. Aburizal 13:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Herby gives me so many requests I cannot often handle. As a very active vandal fighter he should get these rights. --Derbeth ^talk 14:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: Good faith wikibookian, energetic vandal and spam fighter. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Every "me too" counts in this case. --xixtas 12:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: Hard-working wikibookian, we need more like this one and with powers necessary for fighting vandals. Webaware 13:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: Important tools which would allow Herby to better fight vandalism. Xania 14:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: $Herby=Wikibookia{n}_{good}$ Jim Thomas 18:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support -withinfocus 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Support --Az1568 04:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: Betsy 18:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: Pathfinders 18:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: I've seen Herby do some excellent work here, and have no doubt it will continue after he gets checkuser rights. Mattb112885 02:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Support -- Herby is definitely a trusted user here on Wikibooks, and I don't think checkuser rights are nearly as big of a deal as certain members of the WMF board of trustees make them out to be. Definitely add my vote of support, and I think we need more with checkuser rights as well. --Rob Horning 17:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Tommciver 09:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Object While I think Herby is a good guy and a good vandal fighter and the community could benifit from him having these tools, I'm concerned with him sometimes being quick to block and potential incress in users who may be prematurely blocked if allowed to checkuser. I believe Herby still needs to learn to be more cautious and refrain from blocking when hestitent rather then block now and ask questions later. --darklama 15:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

comment -- Actually, part of the advantage of checkuser is it allows us to see if an IP that a vandal has used is also being used by a good-faith contributor. To put it another way: when used correctly, it protects users from unintentional blocks by increasing our accuracy. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Support -- I had some of the same concerns as Darklama. But SB_Johnny brings up a good point that I can't really argue against. --Dragontamer 22:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Support --Panic 17:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Support -- While I've not had a huge amount of contact with Herby, what I've seen of him has been good. Chazz 08:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support --Remi0o 08:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support --AdRiley 09:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support -- KristianMolhave 15:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support strongly; friendly and helpful. Regards, Celestianpower 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support -- Through his discussions with users and assumption of good faith Herby has displayed qualities deserving of such a right. --Herraotic 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: --I have watched some of the work he has done with pages I was working on. I appreciate his desire to protect what I view as a very good endeavor. Rodney 17:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. Ditto to Dragontamer since Darklama hasn't objected to Johnny's comment. --Swift 06:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

By my count, User:Herbythyme has received the necessary 25 votes to become a checkuser. I believe (and I may be wrong in this count) is that in a checkuser vote only 25 support votes are needed, and oppose votes are ignored. I may be wrong in this, in which case we may need to obtain additional votes, or participate in some additional level of discussion to account for the single vote cast in opposition above. I have made the request at meta that a steward come to look at this vote, and grants the permissions as requested pending the review. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My sincere thanks to all who voted. I appear to have been granted Checkuser rights --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominations for CheckUser rights

---

Robert Horning ( talk | email | contribs )

He can already cause plenty of trouble and has resisted any evil urges to do so. -- AlbertCahalan 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I accept the nomination under the policy of having at least one other person to monitor the others who have access to the check user facilities. I hope that my outspokenness hasn't offended too many people, even though I do have a somewhat different view of Wikibooks than some. I believe that some of reasons for a huge difference in opinion about the Check User privileges have to do with a culturual difference about attitudes towards privacy. Still, my only purpose to using these options is to help fight sock puppetry and squash hard-core vandals that are being obviously destructive. --Rob Horning 13:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support AlbertCahalan 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support I didn't realize you had accepted the nomination, or I would have voted for you sooner. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Sure. -withinfocus 22:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Gerard Foley 21:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Derbeth ^talk 09:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Dragontamer 18:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Minun ^Spiderman 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Could not achieve in several months' time. Stagnated and thus failed. -withinfocus 02:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

---

SBJohnny (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Please note Checkuser rights on this wiki are really sought for vandal fighting. It enables vandal fighter to see where a user log's in from (their IP address) and look at other edit activity/user creation activity from that IP. Due to the rules on the vote there must be 25 users in favour of these rights being granted so every votes really does count.

Johnny is one of the more active admin on this wiki who I have got to know quite well in the time I have been here. He (like me) takes a strong view on vandalism and is used to dealing with it. I believe that he has, and should have, the confidence and trust of this community and hope that you will be able to support him. On a personal basis I would ask that if he finds himself inactive for any real period of time he will consider his position. I understand that Johnny will accept this nomination and request checkuser check to be performed on his account. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Acceptance - I accept. It's a good tool both for combatting vandalism and protecting non-vandals who are using sharred IPs. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Confirmation of checkuser status: Checked. I've checked the checkuser database on this user, and it's perfectly clean. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Discussion

• Votes

Strangely/interestingly if you read the top of the page a nomination does not count as a vote so Support as we will need all the votes we can get --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: another hard-working wikibookian. Should have additional powers over vandals as necessary to facilitate vandalblatting. Webaware 13:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: Great Wikibookian who will make good use of these powers. Xania 14:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: $SBJohnny=Wikibookia{n}_{good}$ Jim Thomas 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. I would have been the first to vote, except I left for the weekend before you accepted your nomination. You are well-trusted, helpful, and very friendly, I can't think of a reason why you shouldn't be a checkuser. New abilities do increase your responsibilities, but they also can tend to increase your own sense that you must do more around here, especially more of the boring administrative tasks. Don't let all these tools (admin and checkuser tools) from keeping you from what you really love: contributing to your gardening books. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support -withinfocus 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: Betsy 18:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: Pathfinders 18:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: xixtas 02:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: James Dennett 20:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Support: --Elaragirl 17:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Support This is a good idea to get as many as we reasonably can. A very trusted user and somebody who really wants to help the project. --Rob Horning 17:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Tommciver 09:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Support --Az1568 ^(Talk) 09:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Support --darklama 15:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- 100% support here. --Dragontamer 22:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Support -- I don't know how I missed this before, he'll do well with this. Mattb112885 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Support -- although perhaps I should be supporting this under his other name? Chazz 08:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support --AdRiley 09:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support-- KristianMolhave 15:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. Celestianpower 20:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support -- A great user who is very helpful and will fight vandals well. Tannersf 14:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Support - Sundance Raphael 15:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Support -- Urbane User 11:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Support --Krischik ^T 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Johnny now has the required votes and I have requested the rights on Meta --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. guillom 15:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:User3

Requests for Oversight permission

Withinfocus (talk | email | contribs | logs)

I'd like oversight permission here to help clean up edits here that display inappropriate personal information that involves people who don't want it listed here. Although used sparingly I believe giving this tool to myself and the other bureaucrats will be a benefit here. Please see WB:SL#Oversight permission for a discussion. -withinfocus 00:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Discussion

I confess I have not seen any real instances where this might be used although I am not against it as such. However I do have a couple of questions. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions

1. Do we know what the voting requirement is on this?
2. Can we be clear what circumstances it would be used in? (This is not fully clear from the discussion in the staff lounge, for example would vandalism be included, could be quite a bit of work)

I think I can answer these questions, in short:

1. I have not heard about any official policies concerning the granting of this permission to users. I do know, however, that several users have it already on english wikipedia (if not also on other wikipedias), and that stewards also already have this power by default. given the fact that this is essentially a "privacy" thing, I would assume the rules are similar to checkuser elections (need at least 25 votes, must have at least two on a project).
2. Wikimedia policy is that this can only be used in a few specific instances: When sensitive information is uploaded to the database, and this information can cause criminal/legal problems, to our users and to the project itself. Examples of this would be the inclusion of sensitive personal information (either accidentally uploaded by the individual in question, or uploaded by a vandal to bring attention to the personal details of a well-meaning user). Even though this is the only places prescribed by the WMF to use this ability, I think it should be acceptable to remove other types of vandalism from the history pages of sensitive pages (removing bad words from the history of wikijunior modules, for instance). I would be surprised if this permission were used even once per year.

I hope this helps. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the vandalism bit make take rather more than once a year (I guess if you are using a checkuser basis for the vote we will have to hope that there is less than at present). It's much reduced but far more than once a year (Az & I would have nothing to do!). I brought to Withinfocus's attention the fact that there is personal info around. Given that it is usually put in by IPs I guess it is a moot point as to whether we can be sure it is "freely" given? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that i've included a certain amount of personal information about myself, and that's a voluntary type of thing. I am typically very careful not to include information such as my email address (in machine-readable form), my telephone number, detailed information about where I live, etc. All it takes is for a person to write down their email address, and to have a spam-bot read it and put it on a spam mailing list. Other times, especially with classroom projects, students and teachers alike can be tempted to include far too much personal information (real name, email address/phone number, grades, id numbers, etc). Also, i can imagine situations where people post their wikibooks passwords in notes to other users ("hey, check out my account"). We would want to delete those as quickly as possible too. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a question at meta, asking about the oversight permissions, and the election process. Hopefully the answer to that question will shape the elections here. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• reset

User_talk:Withinfocus#Still_grumpy.21 will give you some insight into the personal information around - how we can tell it is "freely" released I have no idea (I've yet to see - "here is my password" I confess) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally took the stance after our discussion at the Staff Lounge that oversight would be used only according to the terms listed at Meta. -withinfocus 03:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the people on meta, there is no particular policy in place to govern this permission. They made some argument that it would likely be better not to have this permission, because the stewards are very available (and a handful of wikibookians are not nearly as available). It is something to consider. General opinion there is that we should obtain at least 25-30 votes, and follow the rules for checkuser elections. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps instead we should invest the time in setting up a process whereby people can request information be permanently removed if need be, take these requests to the stewards and then only if that process is not effective, revevaluate whether some wikibooks administrators need this particular ability. --xixtas 16:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a pertinent comment - I was just considering posting this

1. When was the last time someone with oversight was requested to use that right and what type of material was removed?
2. Please point me to two items that are felt to require this treatment (and at the same time request someone with oversight to remove whatever it is)

This would at least begin to establish the need --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I might be inclined to agree with User:Xixtas. Perhaps we should come up with a policy page about the oversight feature, telling what it does, when it can be used, and create a standardized method for requesting the use of the tool. At first we could just move all our requests to the stewards, but once we get the system down, we could start to take care of it ourselves. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Best thing I've heard so far --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with dropping all of these votes then and just creating some sort of central information point for all of this. I think we could have a "requests for information" page where users could make requests for things like this and such admin actions would be logged, and that page would correspond to a sort of "administrative actions" policy that lists everything the Wikimedia system offers to any user at this wiki or abroad. I'm not that fond of the administrator's noticeboard and perhaps that and maybe even other pages like vandalism in progress could be consolidated into one unit. The non-integrated pile of policies here could use some organization. -withinfocus 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's do that then. We will abandon these votes, and try to consolidate a number of pages such as the administrators noticeboard (that I dont like either), WB:VIP, and all other requests for help. We can call it "Requests for Help", or something similar, and we can ask that all administrators keep that page on their watchlists. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• resert

Wasn't the general idea that we think we don't really need the right, are we now creating a policy or guideline to a right that we don't have a need for ?!? This was stated on the Staff Lounge, this is only a prevention measure if a more evolved stance on the topic is needed the user with the right can then request it, the thing to aim is only to remove the need to ask an outsider, giving a local admin the right will solve this and keep any future decision "in house", if and when the need arises we can address it, but a guideline about oversight should be initiated and some of the thoughts expressed here should be reflected there. --Panic 17:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a general request for help page. We could roll in requests for bots, admin actions, VIP, transwikis, etc. if that made sense. One page to watch. I like "Requests for help"... "Somebody bring a mop" might be a more descriptive title ;-) . --xixtas 04:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Votes

• Oppose - I will only support one and User:Withinfocus doesn't have Checkuser rights, so he probably isn't the best option. --Panic 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why would you support only one user? Also, what does Checkuser have to do with oversight? These two tools serve very different purposes. -withinfocus 03:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you read the discussion on the Staff Lounge? 1)There is no pressing need for granting this right 2)Checkuser is neeeded to validate if the user has the right to ask for removal of information (or may be needed) 3)Having only a user will prevent abuse and reduce errors, it's easier to check what he does and will remove the need to ask a community outsider to do the job. --Panic 04:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, meta says the log of oversight operations is "private" so I understand only oversight rights owners can see the log. Consequently, I think that there should be always at least two people with these rigths so that the community has some control of use of this function. --Derbeth ^talk 10:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did read it all, but its like having an atomic bomb that his not particularly needed and making a second in case the first fails, the objective is to have an escape route not to ask an outsider if the need arises, when and if it does the user with the rights can deal with it and/or propose a second user to observe his actions if he is unsure, the log will remain there and the user that initiated the action will act publicly and will observe the change, if a third party is affected we will ear about it. --Panic 16:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral is the best I can do until such time as the need is fully established and a rather more precise definition of what may in practice be deleted. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Oversight permission is not needed at this time (if it was Withinfocus would be a fine choice for it). It is only really to be used in the very most extreme cases. I am yet to see a case on Wikibooks that would require it. If it is needed at any point, we have many stewards who could do it.--Cspurrier 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed - abandoned - will archive in the next couple of days --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)'

Nominations for Oversight permission

Whiteknight (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Please see above. -withinfocus 00:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Acceptance - I accept the nomination. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Votes

• Neutral is the best I can do until such time as the need is fully established and a rather more precise definition of what may in practice be deleted. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support the user has checkuser rights and is very active in the community and will be able to deal with any problem that requires this specific right. --Panic 16:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the user's post above, about acting without a user asking for the intervention, this should be avoided and only performed on extreme circumstances where there is a risk for the community as a whole, in the event described a permanent block of the account would work if the offending user wished he could then create another or initiate action on the block that would then be properly addressed. (Now that I think more about it, I really can't see any problem that would required the right to be used without a request, even posting the login information publicly on Wikibooks will not be that bad, the user can even provide the information outside of Wikibooks, users have the chance of anonymity this is an extension and by using another users account all actions performed will be credited to that account and dealt with, I can't remember the information that is displayed to users on registration) --Panic 16:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Oversight permission is not needed at this time (if it was Whiteknight would be a fine choice for it). It is only really to be used in the very most extreme cases. I am yet to see a case on Wikibooks that would require it. If it is needed at any point, we have many stewards who could do it. --Cspurrier 00:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed - abandoned - will archive in the next couple of days --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)'

Derbeth (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Please see above. -withinfocus 00:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Acceptance -

Votes

Closed - abandoned - will archive in the next couple of days --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)'

Requests for bot status

---

User:Seven-League Bot

I hereby request bot status for User:Seven-League Bot. I have been asked to help with tagging images without license. I intend to run a semi-automatic script that tags images without license with {{subst:nld}} and tells the uploader.

This bot is present with bot status on French language wikipedia under the name w:fr:User:Bot de Sept Lieues.

As the process is semi-automatic, this script is harmless. On French language wikipedia, I use this script with my main sysop account. You can see some edits here.

guillom 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: The script I am proposing is not a bot but a semi-automatic JavaScript. It still requires a human, and this is a boring task. The bot status is requested to prevent this account from cluttering recent changes.

Any comment is welcome here : User:Guillom/Images without license

• Strong Support: We've got somewhere over 3,000 images without copyrights, a bot is badly needed. (I had asked guillom to bring it here on the wikiversity IRC.) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support per SBJohnny Kellen ^T 14:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Derbeth ^talk 15:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. where would we go about getting a copy of your source code? I would be very interested indeed to see it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

When it is ready, I will put it in User:Seven-League Bot's monobook. You can take a look at the one I am using on French wikipedia which is similar : w:fr:User:Guillom/monobook/images.js. guillom 15:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. This user now has the bot flag. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Wknight8111 ( talk | email | contribs )

I am looking to give the bot flag to this user account, which is a puppet account of mine. I have created several client programs that will operate through this account, some of which can flood the RC list. Some of the things that this bot can do:

1. Apply standardized headers and footers to many pages simultaneously
2. Apply regular expressions, and other text processing algorithms to many pages simultaneously.
3. Perform most of the necessary administrative duties around the beginning of the month (update COTM and BOTM pages) Automatically.
4. Archive old discussions from VFD and WB:SL

I am going to upload most of the code for these clients in the upcoming weeks (as they are completed and well-tested). The current list of clients and libraries that I have written, along with references and some source code can be found at User:Whiteknight/Bot. I have been using several of these clients already, but as the work load increases, they will flood the RC list. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - there are quite a few good things that a bot could do around here. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Don't see why not. -withinfocus 16:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Is this bot mature and finished or still under development? --Derbeth ^talk 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  A little of both, I would say. The core mechanics are mature, but some of the details (many of which are graphical details for my use only) are still under development. Also, I've been adding and testing new features on a regular basis. I've used several of these tools already, most recently to mass-categorize pages in several books. I would like to send you a copy of my code and my libraries soon, so you can look them over. I am not entirely sure yet whether I am going to release the source code under the GPL, or any other free license, so I don't yet want to post all of it online here. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  I am just worried that the bot may mess up a little in an unexpected moment due to a bug in the code. --Derbeth ^talk 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  Perhaps the word "Bot" is a misnomer, because the clients are only semi-automated. I could, perhaps, write something that was fully automatic, but I have no intention to do that quite yet. Typically, when I make any kind of change that will affect multiple pages, or that will span multiple edits, I will watch the RC feed to make sure things are happening correctly. If something doesnt work as expected, I can cancel the operation, and revert pages (I have already had to do that once or twice back when I was testing it). My clients also can't make any big changes: I have not implemented code to move pages, or to delete pages. This means that any bad edits that it produces are easy to rollback. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - --Panic 06:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Added bot flag. --Derbeth ^talk 22:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Having a bot to make things even throughout a lot of pages is a great idea, and even if the bot does mess up, we can always have it fixed. Fine with me. --Yunzhong Hou 03:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Herbys bot (talk | email | contribs | logs)

The penny dropped! I have run AWB on stuff for a while. However running it now effectively gives it admin status which might be a cause for concern to the community. As such I request approval of this account for running AWB on (& would not then run it on mine again, tho I have some work to complete which I said I would do) to enable cleanups, cats & recats, typos etc on. While I am not planning to run it in auto mode (it is not strictly a bot) it can be run like that and if approved I might use it like that. However it would only have basic user right not admin rights. As another benefit it would mean RC could have these edits excluded. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Discussion

• Could you show some examples (edits) of its use? -withinfocus 20:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Any of my contribs with AWB in the edit summary (it auto fills it anyway) - the most recent are on the Adventist pages at Jim's request. As to what it may be doing it does depend on which options are checked. As it stands it requires an explicit "save" or "ignore" and I still don't think I would run it in auto mode. The only possible exception I would see would be in putting a category in a group of pages and no other changes selected. Happy to let you have any other info --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Votes
  • Support -- If it helps keep the RC logs useful, then it's fine with me. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Xania 18:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Well-developed tool. -withinfocus 20:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't think an admin using a bot is necessarily a cause for alarm, as I have a bot that I run from this account and my User:Wknight81111 account (mostly for larger jobs). However, I think the real concern is for a bot that is run under an admin account, and performs admin operations (blocks, deletions, page protections, rollbacks, etc). If your AWB software doesnt perform any of these admin tasks, especially if it does not perform these tasks without your express consent, there is no problem that I can see with it. I also can't see a problem with running your program in "automatic mode", except perhaps that you might flood the RC list (which would be mostly a problem for you to deal with). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an appropriate precedent to set. --Iamunknown 05:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: bloody good idea to run automated tools under non-admin accounts, just in case. Webaware 13:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Az1568 ^(Talk) 09:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Bot flag set. -withinfocus 16:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

---

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 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• Who will operate from this account? What will be the engine of this bot? --Derbeth ^talk 20:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The idea is to share this account among active, trusted admins. As things stands now, that would mean you, me, Whiteknight, WithinFocus, and darklama. If we end up with a lot more active admins in the future, we might want to do something like a "second RFA" for access to the bot. Right now it's such a small group that making all tools available to all of us makes a lot of sense. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Is it necessary for multiple admins to have access to this account? How long does it take to delete untagged images? --Iamunknown 05:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Votes

• Support - didn't need to read it as I am one who asked for this. Good idea tho anyway and should be supported (can I welcome the "new user" <g>) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• comment OK I naively imagined that this had been sorted on IRC before it came here. Reading this now it obviously has not. I actually think that this request (& and the admin status) is premature without a real discussion somewhere. I think this process should be put on hold until the discussion takes places and any wrinkles are ironed out. If this doesn't happen my vote will be oppose --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• 'Comment with some considerable thought I have amended my vote to in favout again. However that is for those mentioned and in the way mentioned only. If any others were to be allowed to use this without reference here again I would be concerned --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• 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 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It's an interesting idea that I wish I had put more thought into before I suggested it. Not that I disagree with it, but it is a big deal and is worthy of some serious consideration. What we are talking about here is a bot which is also a sysop. To make matters more confusing, the bot would be shared among people who are already sysops, for performing sysop-related functions such as page deletions (I can't think of any other admin tasks that should be automated in any way). On one hand, we would make life easier for the admins without having to promote any additional admins (the current admins essentially benefit from having a bot flag, without being invisible like a bot is). There are some questions that are worth considering before we move forward with this plan:

1. Who uses the bot at which times? We likely shouldnt be logging into the same username at the same time
2. How do we decide what projects to use the bot on?
3. How do we securely share the password to this bot among people (can't post it on wiki, shouldnt post to IRC, etc)
4. How do we decide who gets access to the bot?

It almost might be worthwhile for trusted admins to create their own suckpuppet accounts, and we could vote to give those accounts both the bot flag and a sysop flag in a single RfA (and reduce the dependancy on a shared account). Now, i'm not voting against this proposal (i'll likely vote for it eventually), but I'm just saying that we should all think about this carefully before doing anything. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I just talked to Whiteknight on the phone, and I do agree with all of his concerns (and Xania's). My reply:

1. Who uses the bot at which times? We likely shouldnt be logging into the same username at the same time

I don't see us having a need for the bot all that often. There's really not so many tasks that would require a bot like this, and not so many admins running around looking for things to do (we're all busy with our own projects and don't have time for rote chores, hence the need for a bot).

1. How do we decide what projects to use the bot on?

Sysopbot's talk page might be a good place for requests to be made. There are probably a lot of jobs for this bot that will come up (such as deleting images from deleted books, etc.). The bot should be deployed to do tasks that would be a big pain in the neck for humans to do.

1. How do we securely share the password to this bot among people (can't post it on wiki, shouldnt post to IRC, etc)

We'll have our ways :).

1. How do we decide who gets access to the bot?

For now, I'd say it should be given to active, proven administrators. In the future, we might want to add a section to the RFA page for "access to the sysopbot password".

I think a sysopbot is a scary thing to have... but under the circumstances, our active sysops are a small group who know one another fairly well, and I think we're doing a pretty good job overall. It's appropriate here, now, and with this group of sysops. It might not be later, but we can deal with that then. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, i like all those answers. Let me post a few suggestions then, and see what that does for the discussion. I think the first thing we should do would be to formalize a list of people who will be granted rights to use this bot. The users would have to be current admins who are active and well trusted. Also, (and i shouldnt have to say this), giving out the password to the bot should be strictly prohibited. Also, we need to formalize specifically what software is going to be used with the bot. We can't just vote to give this bot a blank check, we need to know precisely who is using it, and precisely what "it" is. If we stick with a smaller list of admins (myself, derbeth, withinfocus, sbjohnny, darklama) that would probably grease the wheels a little bit. I don't mean that as an insult to some of our other admins, but I am saying that people with access to this bot should be experianced and active (and there are plenty of admins who are one or the other right now, some who are neither, and some who are almost there). LEt's say, for the sake of argument that:

Users

Derbeth, Myself, Withinfocus, SBJohnny, Darklama

Software

Image deletion script from commons

Method to change Users/Software

New users could be given access to this bot, or new software could be approved for use with this bot given community concensus, and majority approval of current users of the bot.

What do people think of these rules? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I like this plan for the most part and think the approved users' list is appropriate. However, I think it's a good idea to check into who exactly is flagged as a bot on this site and who's using bots inappropriately like under their own account. Bots (and I'm not even sure if this one has the flag) like User:Guanabot I find especially offensive since there's no predication towards their use and some users just take it upon themselves. Admins or other users shouldn't just find software to do this and run it under their account, something I've seen a lot of lately. I think bot use here needs to be watched more closely and all the tools we use to be grouped as the usable software under this bot user. -withinfocus 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Opposed doesn't really make sense to have, since the tasks it needs to do cannot be done without sysop status too. --darklama 06:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Opposed Given the possible controversy and opposing votes and a few more concerns I feel inclined to vote against this. Xania 14:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm closing this as failed. While there is a need for some form of bot for major deletions this obviously does not have consensus --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Darkbot ( talk | email | contribs )

A bot account I created to help with clean up tasks. The intent of this bot is to do the following:

• Move every page in a book when a book is being renamed, such as all the Programming:Language books that need to be renamed.
• Fix categories on pages and sort them.
• Fix links on pages to point to directly to a page rather then through a redirect, when moved.
• Fix double redirects or delete them.
• Dewiki pages and adds log entries from import log to to transwiki log.
• Delete unlicensed images.

--darklama 19:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• Have you written this bot on your own? Have you tested it? Perhaps you should show us how it works by making some edits without bot flag. --Derbeth ^talk 20:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'm less mistrustful of bots then Derbeth is, I too would like to see either the source code of the bot (if you wrote it yourself), or a controlled demonstration of it's abilities. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'm willing to vote in support of this if we can see an example of it in use. Xania ^talk 14:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• I know he has the unlicenced delete bot, which works quite well. Again, the bot would need the tools to do this under the flag.--SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• In practice I see AWB can handle "delete" now and would be aware of my admin status if I or another admin were to run if manually on their own login --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I was just thinking that it would be nice if those were under a bot flag, to keep RC a bit cleaner (doesn't help with the IRC feed, of course). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ok maybe my bot request was premature. I'm in the process of writing most of it. The only feature that can be demonstrated at this time is the image deletion feature, which as SB_Johnny has noted would require admin status too. Once its done, I'll gladly demonstrate the other features and show anyone the source code who wishes to see it. --darklama 00:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • About the image deletion thing - there's been too much of that lately with little thought behind it. Automated deletion tools would only make that worse. See here for my beef with current image deletion activities. Webaware 01:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think I should mention that the deletion of images while automate is pretty brain dead right now. It deletes images from a list created by hand, so for example have to add images from the images without a license category to the list before it will even delete it. Secondly because its what was wanted at the time, it will only delete images that have been properly delinked from pages, as is our policy. --darklama 14:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Aha, manual automation - my favourite kind! In that case, I approve :) Webaware 01:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have written up a draft of a bots policy/guideline. I think that this is an issue that we as a community need to seriously discuss before we start creating too many bot accounts, or authorize bot accounts to use too much software (especially software with the potential to be highly distructive, like a deletion bot). The proposal is at Wikibooks:Bots. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Votes

• Support -- though of course it's going to need to be sysopped for the image deletion thing. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - deletion tasks IMHO should not be automated except under the most extreme circumstances. I am strongly against any admin-level bot, certainly with a special 'bot flag enabled. If you are willing to take responsibility for the consequences of the 'bot actions, use it but don't have the special flag. Admin tools should be used very sparingly unless a very widespread policy discussion has prompted a very huge need such as deletion of a specific group of image in a certain category. And that should be a one-time use application. I certainly could delete 500 images in less than a day without using a bot... as I've done in the past. --Rob Horning 23:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Denied. This request has been stagnant for some time without enough support votes. I have drafted a proposal at Wikibooks:Bots that we can use to help govern requests like this in the future with less uncertainty. Anybody interested is welcome to come take a look at that proposal. I will archive this discussion in a week. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)