Wikibooks:Administrators/Status request archive

Next is an old discussion. Please do not change it. If you have something to say go to a talk page.

This request was closed and the result was that no rights were given. --Ezra Katz 19:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[change] Kushan I.A.K.J

I am nominating him for adminship as he thinks that there is a lot of work to be done here, such as reverting vaderlism(seems that about half of the edits here are vanderlism?)... He also says that he got some very good ideas for this Wiki, which he cannot do without this.

I have found out about him and as far as I know he's never had a block on any Wikimedia wiki or never done any vanderlisn and is very strict about it. He also says that he has some ways of getting more users interested here.

Even though he has almost no contributions here, I can trust him in what he says. Many of the things he wants to do it seems that he needs this for. He seems like a very nice, trustable and has helped me many times.

If he does anything wrong here(even one)as a admin, I will have him removed by saying so at meta.

So I give you: User:Kushan I.A.K.J--Emperor13 15:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you accept?: (yes/no)-I accept this kind nomination. "Emperor13" has told pretty much what I have to tell. I see many things to improve(even right now, when in the editing box!) and need sysop rights for me to do so. Also I may seem inactive here, but I can promise you that I will become very, very active if granted adminship as I can do so many things to improve this Wiki then...--Kushan I.A.K.J 15:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes:

1. Support, of course!--Emperor13 15:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose. We don't need to be promoting people to admin before they've done any work here. Some of the most active members here (with "active" being relatively defined) aren't admins, so I dont see why new users should be nominated. Once he does some work here and proves need for the tools, it will be easy to give them. --Whiteknight 19:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose - per socking problems on Wikia ..--Cometstyles 20:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose Snake311 05:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose This user has not showed any reason to be promoted to admin. His or her pretending to be another user is bad and not the type of behavior expected from administrators. I am closing this request. --Ezra Katz 19:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Next is an old discussion. Please do not change it. If you have something to say go to a talk page.

Administrator status was given --Ezra Katz 23:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[change] Ezra Katz ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs)

I am requesting administrator status. If you support this, please add a comment. I have been here for several months and have been working on the Numbers book mostly. I hope to bring others to this website to help get things growing. --Ezra Katz 00:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[change] Votes

1. Support - Okay, I know I'm a new user, but I've been editing regular english wikipedia since January, and simple english wikipedia since April. So, with that being said, I think Ezra Katz is a good user who could use the tools. --isis 02:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - I see no reasons to oppose. This wiki could always use more admins. ~ Wikihermit 02:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose: At least you've been here a while. That's good. But the fact that you only have about 100 edits shows a lack of commitment to this wiki. What do you want to do with the admin tools? What would you use them for? Try again when you have more edits (close to 1000). --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

   Comment: I feel the guideline of 1000 edits should not apply. First, SE Wikibooks is its own project with very little history. While it is useful to borrow policy from other projects, I don't feel you can arbitrarily claim the 1000 edit rule when there is no precedent for it on this particular project. Second, this wiki's scope is to create textbooks, a much slower process than on Wikipedia especially when careful attention to choice of language is required. If you take a look at the contributions I have made, though few, they are of quality and of careful consideration.

   The reason I requested admin status was because until the last few days this wiki was stagnant. Since I joined in February I had seen only a few people besides myself contribute any content. I did not see anyone here providing direction or helping to foster a community here.

   My request for admin status had been ignored for several weeks even though I tried to contact both admins and the bureaucrat. Wether they approved of my request or not that was far to long without any word. An admin needs to show the commitment to check how things are going at least once or twice a week. I feel that the very basic needs of the community are not being served.

   As for what I would do with the admin tools, there are several dead pages that need to be removed. I would like to see the Simple English Algebra text move over here from wikibooks, and I would gladly take care of the day to day maintenance tasks. More importantly than what I would do with the tools, I would continue an active role in this community and do more than a few figureheads put here by Meta to keep the vandals away.

   If this discussion does nothing more than bring the attention the admins here then that is fine. I care about this project and see great potential. I am absolutely thrilled at the recent surge of edits and hope this wiki really takes off! --Ezra Katz 03:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

   I have commented on this on Wikihermit's talk page, but I'll comment and recap briefly here. First, there is no current bureaucrat here. Regarding the 1000-edit rule, there actually is precedent for that rule here, as anyone who checks the /Status request archive can see. No, it was not explicitly stated, but it is visible there that any user without many edits or a significant time here was not given admin rights. Regarding my own admin status vs. my edit count, it is important to understand the context (this is partially copied from my explanation to Wikihermit): Because of the extremely small number of regular editors when I started working here, it was not necessary to have many admins, and it still isn't, but since there was basically no one else, it was valuable that I be one, to do things like block vandals and protect pages. Coincidentally, the previous admin knew me from SE Wiktionary, and knew he could trust me. As was mentioned, it is a matter of trusting the user more than any other single factor, and this admin had seen me in action over at SEWT. Actually, he first asked me to be an admin over there after seeing me work for a while, and when I started working on SEWB and SEWQ, he already knew that I was a good editor and would be a good admin, so he asked me to be an admin in those places, too, even though I had not worked much in either place at the time. This is why the 1000-edit rule was not called into effect in my particular case.

   As far as length of vote, I'm sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, but I must say that I would have almost certainly given you the same response. It is valuable to note that on small wikis the one-week rule is generally extended considerably so that occasional users can also vote/comment. Because of my login problem (which I explained on my user page and Wikihermit's talk page), I couldn't serve my admin functions here for some time. How often an admin should check on a wiki is an opinion, I think, but I'll agree that I was inactive for quite a while (largely because of the login problem mentioned above). I'll see if I can avoid that in the future.

   Now, talking about you and adminship: Yes, your edits have been of quality. In fact, I think it is worthwhile to have another active admin here, partially since I must admit that I'm spread between three different projects (since I'm also an admin on SEWT and SEWQ), which is part of the reason why I'm not as active here as I perhaps should be. I am in full agreement with Jimbo and others in that this should be "no big deal," though I do think that we shouldn't give those rights recklessly. In a case like this, it makes sense to choose the user with more than a week of activity here, since that gives a chance to see how the user edits over a period of time. I even like the use you plan to make of the admin tools. If the community is in agreement, I think the same kind of exception as I received could be made and admin rights granted you. While each request should be treated separately, the low level of admin-related needs makes more than one more admin a bit unnecessary. Also, the number of admins should generally be a rather small percentage of regular users. As we grow, more admins will be necessary, and the others can be among the first, assuming all goes well. How does the community feel about this (especially Isis, Michael, and Wikihermit, since you guys are most of the community at the moment)? This is not meant to be the same as the previous vote, so I'd like to hear from you guys once more, if you don't mind. After we deal with this vote, we'll know what to do about the other one(s), I think.

   I hope you can all see that I'm not trying to be in any way authoritarian here. Just because I happen to be an admin doesn't make me any better than anyone else, though it does show that someone decided (correctly or incorrectly) to trust me in the past, so what I say might not be completely wasted breath. It is the community's decision, and I suppose if the community really felt like having three new admins, we'd do that. I just think things should be done in orderly fashion, and I don't feel as if having many new admins (especially when they are mostly new users here) is necessary, the way to go, or even a particularly good idea, since first impressions can be deceiving.

   I, too, care about this project. I've even fought for it when someone tried to close it on Meta. This is a project that has great potential. Let's make it all it can be! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 21:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   First off, I'm sorry for that "figureheads" comment. It's been a bit lonely here and in all the excitement of new activity I let that rude comment slip out. Second I have no problem with waiting a bit for admin status. As I explained before, I was mostly motivated by the lack of involvement on the part of the current admins. I feel, however, it's a bit silly to go through all this talk of precedent. There is barely enough of a community now to qualify any actions here as a consensus. There is no real harm being lenient in the rules while this project gets it's footing. Looking at the archive a see a couple users who might have been encouraged by a little authority thrown their way and might still be active now if they were made admins. The rules help in a situation like Wikipedia with thousands of active users. They get in the way when there is maybe a dozen. I think this is a case for invoking the "Ignore All Rules" policy over at WP. --Ezra Katz 23:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   No harm done, Ezra. I know how things can be. Thanks for apologizing, though, that's nice of you. Yes, I agree that the community is very small, and that affects things. I'm afraid I have to disagree with you regarding those premature requests for admin status. We should never make an admin to try to keep a user, for a variety of reasons. If the user doesn't have enough commitment to the project to keep him/her here without admin status, then that's not a person we want as an admin anyway. We can and should encourage, but making a person an admin is not encouragement, and as I said before, we should not give out the tools recklessly. Either way, the past is the past. We can invite those former editors back and encourage them in other ways, but even if that doesn't happen, the new community, small though it may be, can now make the decisions that one person had to make before. I would also like to mention that we are discussing something similar on SEWP about admins. There, we are talking about the fact that we shouldn't do things only temporarily that we are planning on changing later, because it is often hard to change the way things work later. We should try to do things the way we want them to stay. Oh, and while I do plan on being quite a bit more active here than in the past, I'll be happy to follow consensus on this vote. Thanks for dialoguing. Let's continue. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

   Believe it or not, I saw all the comments the day they were posted. I've been trying to make an opinion about all this, which is why it's taken so long to reply.

   I don't think this wiki needs very many admins, at the most two or three, but these two or three need to be active. Considering the lack of pages here, I think it would be very hard to make 1000 edits, so the 1000-edit rule shouldn't apply. Also, it's not the number of edits a user makes, it's the quality of the edits that matters. However, a user with only a few edits should never be made admin. I do think that I was a bit hasty in running for adminship before being here for three months, or even a week. I think the three-month rule should apply, yet shorter...maybe eight - ten weeks instead. I agree with Cromwellt in that users should not be made admins to keep them a user. If any user were allowed to become admin, the result would be very bad.

   I'll comment more later. --Isis 16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

4. Support --Vector 19:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Support An active and quality editor who deserves the tools and Wikibooks Simple English needs more administrators if it is to fight off any attempts to close or merge this project. Xania 20:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Support: I changed my vote because Ezra has been here for quite some time and is a consistently good editor. He still has less edits than ideal, but he's proven himself and has edited very consistently (at least a few times basically every month). He has also explained to me some of his plans for this wiki, which I think are great. I'm making a permissions request on meta. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 17:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Above is an old discussion. Please do not change it. If you have something to say, go to a talk page.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section. Closed as withdrawn. ~ Wikihermit 02:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[change] Isis ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs)

I am requesting to become an administrator. I haven't been here very long, but I've been editing English wikipedia since January, and Simple English wikipedia since April. The current sysops are basically inactive, and I am active. --isis 11:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance:(self nomination)

[change] Votes

1. Support We need more admins. ~ Wikihermit 13:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support I'm hesitant to support such a new user, but the shear mass of edits and motivation to build this project is encouraging. Also, there is a lack of active admins here which needs to be corrected. --Ezra Katz 22:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose: We generally stick to the unwritten RfA guidelines from SEWP here. That means you should have about 3 months of activity and about 1000 edits before requesting adminship. This shows the community that you are committed to the wiki and gives evidence that you can be trusted (assuming all your edits are constructive). Don't let this discourage you. Try again when you have been here longer and have more edits. What do you want the admin tools for? What will you do with them? I'm sure you'll be relieved to hear that I'll be more active here in the future, since I've discovered the solution to my login problem that has kept me from logging in for months. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

   Comment - Neither you nor Michael have 1000 edits. I requested adminship because I am an active user. I admit I'm new, as I said in my RfA, but I plan to stay with this wiki. I will withdraw my request if you and/or Michael become more active. --Isis 02:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

   Unless other people vote, I'll become an admin. Just to point that out... --Isis 22:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

   Two more days...--Isis 22:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

   It's been a week. --Isis 01:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

   Just pointing out that a week isn't necessarily the default length of time, and at any rate you'll have to ask a steward on Meta to promote you since there are no local bureaucrats here. Majorly 17:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not really anticipating becoming an admin. --Isis 17:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

4. Support can I vote? --Vector 19:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

   Comment: As I mentioned on your talk page, users that are very new or haven't really worked on a wiki are generally treated like anons, regardless of how active they may be on other wikis. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

5. Support she helps out tons at other wikis ^__^ —This unsigned comment was added by Jessica (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 July 2007.

   Comment: As above, work on other wikis has little or no value here. This community must decide these things based on work done here. Because of other discussions, such as Ezra Katz's admin request discussion, Isis seems to be more or less withdrawing her request. If there are no other pertinent comments, I will close this vote as withdrawn. Obviously, if I'm wrong about this, Isis, let me know. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

   RE:Comment: But her work on other wikis has shown she is capable of doing great work and tons of help, and she has made this place good enough, too, by creating some articles. So I think you're making a HUGE mistake because she'd make a fantastic administrator, for she has proven her worthiness, n my point of view. --Jessica 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I really appreciate your concern, Jessica, but it's okay. :) I made this request because, at the time, there were no active administrators (see my talk page for more details about it). Now that Cromwellt has begun editing again, I really don't need to become an admin. :) I'm fine with closing this request as withdrawn, Cromwellt, and, sorry, but I'm afraid I won't be able to do it myself (busy), so you can close it, if you don't mind. Thanks, --Isis 22:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.