Wikibooks

Wikibooks:Administrators/Status request archive

< Wikibooks:Administrators

This page is an archive of old requests for administrator or bureaucrat rights. Please do not edit this page unless you're archiving.

2009

This discussion has finished. The result was successful


GrooveDog

Well, let's see. I started helping this project a few weeks ago when Pmlinediter mentioned it on IRC (heh, if this was RfA i'd be slaughtered for saying that word. ;)). I'd never worked on Wikibooks before, and as there's so much here to be written, it looked great. So I started contributing. I've written a few pages on topics such as card games, Cookbook, music, and intend to continue. I've got about 130 edits and contribute frequently, and would use the extra tools mostly for some page moving where a redirect is really not required (suppressredirect). Another admin to help fight the small amount of vandalism we receive would be helpful too, I monitor the rc feed on irc.wikimedia.org and can usually pick up vandalism edits as they are made. Thanks for your comments, GrooveDog (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has finished. Please don't change it.


This discussion has finished. The result was unsuccessful


Tempodivalse

Hi, i'm requesting bureaucrat access at this wiki. The SEWB community has expanded considerably over the past few weeks, now with about 7-10 active users, and i think we've gotten to the size where we could do with some bureaucrats, instead of being dependent on the stewards at Meta for things like +sysoping and bot requests. I'm among the most active users here (i usually check the RC at least a few times a day), so I would likely be able to respond to any bureaucrat tasks in a timely manner. I have bureaucrat access at SEWQ and the English Wikinews, so i already am familiar with what bureaucrats do. :-) Regardless of this RfB's result, i'm here to stay. Thanks for your consideration, Tempodivalse [talk] 00:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Support - We need a bureaucrat. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support a local bureaucrat. If needed I can run for this right as well. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose I really hate to oppose anyone, especially someone who's helped so much with the WB namespace of this project so much. It's really not that I don't trust you, I truly do believe that you'd be a good judge of consensus and trust you and everything. It's really your lack of mainspace contribs. I don't intend to sound like a certain anger-filled page, it's just that in all seriousness, to save this project (it's up for being closed), we need contributions in the mainspace, new books/pages and the like. You just don't have those, you make spelling corrections and other gnomey things (that's extremely helpful, btw) but at the moment we need our active contributors to get into building our content rather then worrying about our project side. Meta can handle our requests for the moment, we have no active bots and everyone here has SUL so no one will really need renaming atm. A week or so of full, mainspace contributions and I'd have absolutely no problem supporting you. Just my two cents. GrooveDog (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Well really per GrooveDog. Please contribute to the mainspace first. This vote might change if you do such work. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Groovedog brings up a good point that mainspace expansion, rather than admin-related maintenance, is needed to help save the wiki from closure. I'll try to create some new books, thanks for the suggestion. :-) Cheers Tempodivalse [talk] 13:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No hard feelings or anything. :) Just that atm we really don't need to be worrying about new sysops/bureaucrats, we need to worry about how long this project will last. We have 400 pages in the mainspace, and I just feel as if the people representing this wiki as leaders (bureaucrats) need to demonstrate that we are indeed trying to help. Thanks, GrooveDog (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose per GD. Razorflame (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Not promoted. Sorry, but there is no consensus to promote. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has finished. Please don't change it.


This discussion has finished. The result was successful


Maximillion Pegasus

Maximillion Pegasus is an active editor here, and i think he can be trusted with admin privs, being an admin at SEWT and SEWQ. As such, i'm nominating him for the position - and we can never have too many admins. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 18:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you accept my nom? Tempodivalse [talk] 18:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Consensus has formed; Maximillion is now an admin. Pmlineditor ∞ 17:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has finished. Please don't change it.


This discussion has finished. The result was successful



Juliancolton

Hi all, I'm requesting access to the sysop tools so I can help with various maintenance tasks, including blocking open proxies and simplifying MediaWiki pages. I'm somewhat active here, and I check in once or twice a day to look for unproductive edits. I'm an admin at multiple wikis, including the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, so I do have quite a bit of experience with adminship. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Consensus has formed; JC is now an admin. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has finished. Please don't change it.


This discussion has finished. The result was successful


Pmlinediter

Well, TDV said most of it for me. I'm sufficiently active in the mainspace (48% of my edits) and have been simplifying the MW interface. I'm a sysop on simplewp and a crat on simplequote, and I'd like to help out. Thank you, Pmlineditor ∞ 08:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Support Trusted. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support - Yes, we definitely need a local bureaucrat. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   NeutralFor the sole reason that imo at the "stage" our community is at we don't really need a bureaucrat. This is really the "other half" of my oppose to TDV, imo Meta can handle requests that crats do if we need them. We have the standard bot policy (automatic approval pretty much), no one needs to be renamed and sysops are few. I like that you've contributed more to the mainspace but at the same time we need more pages written then sysops promoted. As with TDV as well, I fully trust you to not abuse this tool but I can't support because honestly we don't need a crat right now. GrooveDog (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just one thing, we currently have 4 RfXes. In the past 2-3 weeks, we've had 7 RfXes compared to about 1 previously, ie, the number has doubled. Being a crat does not create problems in article writing. If we have RfXes, then if a crat closes it, it will be easier than going to meta - making a request etc. etc. I like keeping things local. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on answering the hidden question. :) Change to   Support. GrooveDog (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has finished. Please don't change it.


This discussion has finished. The result was successful, user promoted


Tiptoety

Hello friends. I am requesting +sysop here. I am an administrator at the English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Simple Wikiquote, am a member of the foundations OTRS team, and have rollback rights on a number of other simple projects. I am requesting the tools primarily to assist with responding to cross-wiki vandalism, along with blocking open proxies. Thank you for your consideration, Tiptoety talk 02:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has finished. Please don't change it.


This discussion has finished. The result was successful, user promoted


Pmlinediter

Hi, I'm Pmlinediter and I'd like to request sysop here. I'm a sysop at SEWP and SEWQ and have got experience with the bit. I'm fairly experienced here to and would like to assist the other sysops. Also, on a side note, I wonder WHY 2 others requested sysop exactly when I was going to :P Pmlineditor ∞ 05:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag granted at meta. Maximillion Pegasus 15:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has finished. Please don't change it.


This discussion has finished. The result was successful, user promoted


Tempodivalse

Hallo, i'm requesting administrator status here. Although there's no current pressing need for extra sysops, there have been several times in the past when either I or another user have needed administrator attention, but could not get a response from either of the two semi-active sysops for a long time. I check in here at least a few times a day, and could easily react to vandalism and other admin tasks that the other sysops might miss. I'm a bureaucrat at en.wikinews and simple.wikiquote, and an admin at several other wikis, so i can probably be trusted not to abuse the bits. :-) Thanks for your time, Tempodivalse 02:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag granted at meta. Maximillion Pegasus 15:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has finished. Please don't change it.


This discussion has finished. The result was rollback granted


Juliancolton

I'm not by any means the most active editor here, and I don't plan on becoming one. However, I would like access to the rollback tool to use during the occasional vandalism attacks. I have prior experience with adminship on three WMF projects. If rollback is ever locally enabled (doubtful), I'd likely resign adminship. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 05:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I never said I wanted to block new "users". I said we should block automatically-created malbots. Moreover, I don't intend to do any blocking here; I simply want rollback. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave you rollback rights :-) Are still running for admin? Abigor 17:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! In that case, I withdraw this request. Cheers. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has finished. Please don't change it.


Abigor

Adminship restored by a steward. Juliancolton 19:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friends,

I would like to ask you to restore my rights here on simple.wikibooks. I am back for a month or so and missed my tools multible times when reverting vandalism or tagging test articles for speedy delete.

I let a steward remove my right beter a period of inactitety and I was in that period not thinking about coming back. I am still a administrator on Commons a administrator and bureaucrat on Incubator. I hope nobody opposes in restoring my flags (admin and importer)

Best regards, Abigor 08:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Eagle

Hello all! I am User:American Eagle ( talk edit watch contribs history links logs localspace delete block ), I am requesting to be granted the +sysop flag, firstly, because I know how to be an administrator, and have much experience in that field (with hundreds of deletions, tens of blocks, etc.). Secondly, I plan to help fight vandalism (with rollback, especially), delete pages, block vandals if needed, etc. on Simple English Wikibooks (as there are only two active admins currently), and also to work on protected/MediaWiki: pages. Finally, I am doing this because adminship isn't a big deal. I hope to help this community grow, and the Delete|Block|Protect buttons will only help in that expedition. Thank you. :) TheAE talk 23:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Sure, why not? No reasons not to promote this user. Cheers, Razorflame 23:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although there's no big reason to deny the flag to AE, there is virtually no third-time-vandalism needing a block, pages are deleted often, and rollback isn't really needed (it's only one click more!). Although I am not very active on-wiki, I monitor the Recent Changes feed, and delete pages as soon as I come across them. According to vvv's edit counter (with a replag of 5 or so days), you only have 75 edits. Maybe you should expand them first? Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On Simple English Wikiquote, which receives even less vandalism than Simple English Wikibooks, I have over 440+ deletions (see here), as well as many other administrative actions (totaling 687). I did this with virtually no vandalism at all. Even though I may not only use it for vandalism, MC8, I still have much use of the tool. And I also had a low edit count when I became an administrator on Simple English Wikiquote, but it gradually added up. TheAE talk 18:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I feel that I have the deletions front covered (although I may be wrong). Other admin actions are rarely needed, so why do we need another administrator? Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you do a good job of keeping on top of things. But that wasn't really my point. I mean, I use the administrator tools for non-vandalism as well. I use it to delete and protect projects I work on, and it would be such a waste to add {{delete}} to all 440+ (as above) deletions. It is just a few tools that I use fairly often, and can help with if needed, not really that another administrator is desperately needed. TheAE talk 19:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quick CTRL+F search of your contribs shows that "delete" only comes up once in an edit summary... so it's not fairly often that you use it on this wiki. Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, re-reading that it sounds very cold. Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind. My point is, adminship truly isn't a big deal. It really only is a few buttons given to those who will use it properly. Before becoming an administrator on Simple English Wikiquote, I didn't have many QDs (or Fast deletions) either. I just use it from time to time, and it would only be a benefit to the community, not a harm. TheAE talk 21:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1.   Oppose you are to new, and there isn't a big nead for a new admin. Abigor 22:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Microchip08 (talk)

Hi there, I'm User:Microchip08 ( talk edit watch contribs history links logs localspace delete block ), and I'd like to apply for administrator status on Simple English Wikibooks. I understand that there has already been a recent suucessful request for adminship, but there are several reasons I would like the flag/think I deserve the flag:

Please bear in mind that when using toolserver tools, there is a replag of around three or four weeks, so edits are pretty much out of sync! The replag should be fixed by mid-Febuary, according to the toolserver people.

I'm not an admin on any Wikimedia project, but I am trusted with the flag on various other wikis: Mibbit, SoGeekItHurts and YourWiki. I have c.5000 edits on all Wikimedia projects combined, and am trusted with rollback on English Wikipedia and Simple English Wikipedia, so I know how to use the flags (although I'm still going to test the tools in my userspace before I 'go live'!). I'm active on many IRC channels, so I can be reached quickly in an emergency.

Please consider my application, and please remember that this isn't a vote. Give reasons for your support, or your oppose. Thank-you. Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested at meta. Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 21
34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Done, I am now an administrator. Thankyou for your support. Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 17
01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

*  Support - I am not inactive, my goat broke my finger and it hurts like hell so I am not able to type a lot on the moment. But you have my full support. Abigor 21:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a fair vote. I see voters with only 2 edits, with the first one here. And this wiki is very inactive. But you have 10 voters. We don't have so much different edittors here. Why did the come to vote here? Did you ask them? Abigor 21:35, 5 February 2.
Urgh. There were a few "go edit Wikibooks, please" in IRC, but some of these users (Ryan, Chenzw, Abigor, Ezra) weren't even on IRC at the time. Even if these users were discounted, we'd end up with BG7 [edited before RfA], Ezra, Maximillion, Abigor & possibly RyanCross. Therefore, it's still a pass, although it may push me down to a temp. adminship. You'll notice that a few of these tiny-edit editors also voted for Abigor. Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the votes from three persons can count.
Malory : 1 edit this year on the rfa none edits in 2008.
Shapiros10  : First edit is your rfa, second one talkpage message.. No edits after that.
Chenzw : Inactive for almost a year, comes back and vote and no real edits after that.

You will stil pass the vote. Abigor 21:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly pathetic, Abigor. Seriously. I found this on my own. Majorly 22:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not utterlu pathetic, I just find it very hard to believe that you will not edit for more than a year and than return to only make a vote. He will get the admin rights, I have no problem with that. But people who are not active on a project shouldn't vote on something. Abigor 22:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That particular comment, Majorly, was a bit... harsh. Regards, Microchip08 (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you were pathetic, I said the comment was. What's wrong with supporting people? Like my vote will even change anything. Majorly 22:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: A non-admin can close this because a steward has already promoted Microchip08. Congratulations on becoming an administrator MC8! Razorflame 17:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abigor

This request was closed and the result was: Administrator status was granted. Sj 01:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am requesting administrator right on this nice wiki. The wiki is very small and there are not many edits a day. I am active here on a daily basis. And can react soon in case of Vandalism.

The lack of admins can cause problems for this wiki. I have requested steward help lattely because the speedy delete category was still full after 3 months. I hope the community grant me this extra rights, I am already a admin on Commons. Abigor 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008

SwirlBoy39

From Meta Microchip08 (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SwirlBoy39@simple.wikibooks

Template:Sr-request Thank you! ѕwirlвoy ₪ 20:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed template and title Abigor talk 20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Note, I'm an admin on another project and a soon-to-be in a few months on another hopefully. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 21:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this here is not the place for votings/discussions that should be done locally, thanks for Your understanding, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done

, no local request/voting, no status, sorry, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is a closed 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 no rights were given.

user:Bluegoblin7

Ok, i'm going to make this a temporary request for now, say 3 months, so that I can basically bring the wiki up to the standards of the other Simple Projects. I feel I can bring a lot to the project. Comments would be appreciated below.

Thanks,

BG7even 20:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of things would you be using the rights for, in particular? Microchip08 10:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well as it's temp, mainly getting the wiki going, protecting pages, changing system messages etc. Also, I would use it for vandals as and when it happens, if it happens. After the temp time was up, if the community felt I had used it well I would apply for permanent adminship. I have experience with the tools and know what I am doing. I hope that answers your question. BG7even 11:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What pages require protecting? Would you use the delete tool? If so, when? Microchip08 11:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I cannot think of any. It would mainly be pages that come under the threat of vandalism and also pages that I create in building the wiki that I feel need protecting. The delete tool would simple be used for removing vandalism, cleaning up the wiki etc. If in doubt I would always ask on IRC. BG7even 11:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you don't need the delete tool, and you don't need the protect tool. There is a low amount of vandalism on Wikibooks, and many are blocked by Stewards. So do you need the block tool? What MediaWiki messages are you thinking of changing? Microchip08 11:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... this is why at the moment I am only asking for temporary adminship whilst I get the wiki going a bit. It's more so that I don't have to bug the stewards and admins who are not that active more than anything. System messages at the moment I think would be things such as the sidebar, and also the css and js files to add things that are at the other sites. Also simplyfying the rest of the messages, for example the copyrights one below the edit box. Thanks, BG7even 11:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked around in various IRC channels, and so will point you towards BetaWiki if you just want to edit MW space, or we could file a bug (bugzilla:15252) to get an editinterface right for you. I don't feel comfortable giving you adminship if that's the only thing that is needed. Microchip08 11:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I still think the whole package would benefit the wiki. May I ask why you don't feel comfortable with giving me adminship? BG7even 11:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's more the "if it's not needed... don't give it away" philosophy. Microchip08 11:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks for your input! BG7even 11:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the three project edits and the zero mainspace edits... is rather low. Microchip08 11:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just remembered something else that you might find useful, that Majorly explained to me, which I found extremely helpful, after I did the same sort of thing you just did on Simple English Wikipedia (thanks, Majorly, hope you don't mind:
I really think you should concentrate on something other than being an admin. Like, the encyclopedia perhaps? Try writing some articles, copyediting, expanding etc. Being an admin is trivial really, and mostly involves trust, and commitment, but to me it looks like you think it's some sort of trophy, when it really isn't. Why would you want it when you have done nothing here? Good luck as an editor, and maybe come back with some more experience! :)
Hopefully, you'll find it as useful as I did.
Yours,
Nanochip08 13:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me, what the wiki needs is books. That's what makes it a wiki. So far the content is in extreme need of attention, and can be prioritised so far above the need for editing MediaWiki etc. My suggestion is, that if you really want to get it up to standard, start writing!! That is just my advice. The rest can be fixed at some other point, but the wiki really isn't a wiki without its content. PeterSymonds 17:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PeterSymonds. I don't think you need to be an administrator now, but just writing books is enough! Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A user needs to show many edits over several months in order to be considered for admin status. There is a lot you can do here without admin rights, and this project does need A LOT of help. Please clean up, organize, and create content as much as you want. If you have any problems that require the admin tools, I can help.--Ezra Katz 11:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed 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 no rights were given. --Ezra Katz 02:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user:Wiremaxman

I noticed this project needs a lot of work. I think I can help. Wiremaxman 00:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you want to help, but you need to show many edits here over a period of months before you can become an administrator. Please don't let this discourage you from helping, and welcome to the project! --Ezra Katz 02:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Votes:

  1. Support, of course!--Emperor13 15:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Oppose - per socking problems on Wikia ..--Cometstyles 20:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Snake311 05:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]

CU proves that Kushan is using Emperor13 as a sockpuppet to rig the election. So this shouldn't be allowed to continue further given the bad faith displayed with the deceitful nomination. Drini 20:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  2.   Support - I see no reasons to oppose. This wiki could always use more admins. ~ Wikihermit 02:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  4.   Support --Vector 19:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance:(self nomination)

Votes

  1.   Support We need more admins. ~ Wikihermit 13:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Unless other people vote, I'll become an admin. Just to point that out... --Isis 22:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Two more days...--Isis 22:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been a week. --Isis 01:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I'm not really anticipating becoming an admin. --Isis 17:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support can I vote? --Vector 19:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

2006

45thuser

I am requesting admin. status for Meta. If I am inactive for more than 2 months, you can revoke me. Please either support or reject the idea in the space below.

WillieWallieWoo

I am requesting administrator status on Meta. WillieWallieWoo 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am requesting administrator access on Meta. Gmcfoley 08:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn Gerard Foley 23:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cromwellt

I am requesting admin access on meta. If you support this idea, please mention it here. --Cromwellt 20:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005

From meta:

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Administrators/Status_request_archive&oldid=15942"