Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Az1568

+Administrator

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)[]

  • 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

+CheckUser

Az1568 (discuss · contribs · count · logs · block log · rfps · rights) (Removal of adminstrator)

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Kept while active in April 2024 without consensus to remove or prejudice.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 01:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Does not meet the administrator expectation (Administrators are expected to be active (see sysop activity on Wikibooks). There are no hard and fast definitions on what it means to be "active" but the general expectation for nomination of desysopship is the lack of activity for a year. Administrators who are not using privileges, those privileges provided by the community due to the user's knowledge and activity, do not need to continue having them. Administrators do not have a "lifetime membership" and are expected to continually use their tools for the good of the community.) Last edit on 3 January 2023 and last logged action on 21 January 2023. --Ameisenigel (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[]

Disagree I don't support this policy. Unless there is a security concern or the user requests it.--Xania talk 05:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[]
@Ameisenigel: Late response, but were the users in question notified? --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 09:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]
I notified the two users in question. If they don't respond, we'll have to request on m:SRP. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 09:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]
I don't have an opinion either way. As I said the last time this came up, if the community feels that I'm no longer meeting expectations, I won't oppose their decision. --Az1568 (discuss • contribs) 10:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[]
I disagree with the removal. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Question: I don't have a strong opinion either way, and thank you to @Az1568 for cleaning out the speedy deletion candidates just now! My question, though, is policy-related. If the policy says that admins must be active, are we not obligated to either follow the policy or seek to officially amend it (instead of simply disregarding it)? I just want to make sure we're going about things in a responsible way and are held properly accountable to community guidelines. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[]
That is why I was a little confused with the two opposes. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 03:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[]
This is Wikibooks, not Wikipedia. Here we use common sense and reasoning rather than blindly following policies. I have always opposed strict policies as can be seen in my 19 years of edits.--Xania talk 00:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[]
I can understand that, and I do agree that blindly following a bad policy is the wrong way to cultivate a functional community. However, if we disagree with aspects of a policy, I feel like we should seek consensus and amend the policy to improve it instead of just ignoring policies we don't like—we should work together to make sure the policies do reflect common sense and community values. As such, could you clarify why exactly you disagree with the admin activity requirements? Thanks! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 17:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[]
I already have. I said I don't support this policy unless there is a security issue (has his password been compromised?) or the user requests it.--Xania talk 00:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[]
The policy is an inactivity policy. With notification, Az1568 returned to activity - as they do from time-to-time. So, I opposed the removal on the basis that they remain active. The point of the policy is not to slavish remove access when exactly X number of days is reached, but to ensure that rights are only retained by those using them. Or, as I often say, the point of the process is not to follow the process. Rather, the point of the process is to achieve the outcome that the process is intended to achieved. The purpose of this process is to ensure rights are only retained by those who need them. That purpose has been achieved. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 12:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Ah, I see—that makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarification! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[]
This article is issued from Wikibooks. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.