Wikibooks

Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Az1568

< Wikibooks:Requests for permissions
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

+Administrator

edit

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
The checkuser check was completely clean. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly does a checkuser check? Just curious. Jim Thomas 15:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Votes
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No need to reply, but if you move it, please copy and paste; don't "move". — User:Iamunknown 04:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Discussion copied to Wikibooks:Staff_lounge#Discussion_on_consensus

+CheckUser

edit

Az1568 is often our first line of defence against those who mean mischief, and has a keen sense about "vandals he's seen (and blocked) before"

He's been bugging User:Herbythyme and I with multiple CU requests: most of his requests come up with positive results (resulting in IP blocks), and he has always been appropriately discrete. I feel quite confident that he could make good use of the tool, and it would make things flow a bit more smoothly for us if he didn't have to use me or herby as "middlemen".

I consider making this tool available to User:Az1568 a serious priority for our project, because I believe strongly that he is both willing and able to use it to our collective benefit. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept. This is a great anti-vandalism tool and hopefully, it'll make our current cu's lives a bit easier, as they won't have to deal with my never ending list of cu requests. = ) --Az1568 (Talk) 00:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1.   Support as nominator. --SB_Johnny | talk 00:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support - this user is a very diligent admin and, frankly, needs CU to ease their burden. For that matter, SB_Johnny and Herbythyme need Az1568 to have CU too! Webaware talk 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support - I thought we use the green things now ... -withinfocus 00:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support - without a doubt, has been responsible and a great help in protecting us, and this will help in that respect to be sure. Mattb112885 (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support - the referred user is referenced as someone we should look for an helping hand, txs m8t :) --Panic 01:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support enough said. :-) --Iamunknown 01:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support - ditto. -- Jim Thomas (aka Jomegat) 01:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support. Az Is a great vandal fighter, and it only makes sense to give him better vandal-fighting tools. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support - Makes perfect sense to me. --Remi 02:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support - I can think of no one else in this project (or a number of others) that I would be more happy to trust with this. The requests don't bother me (& I'm still around the most "active" admin <g>) but for Az to do it themselves would be fine - timezones work out well too --Herby talk thyme 09:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support - User is active in vandal fighting and has done a lot of good to help the project. I sincerely appreciate the effort and believe that this user will use the tools appropriately. --xixtas talk 16:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support--Cspurrier 23:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support I delayed my vote on this issue as I wanted to wait until I had time to look at Az's contributions so I could see what exactly he does. Basically he does everything and more. He's certainly worthy for this tool. Xania  talk 17:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support Az is an experienced vandal fighter not only here on Wikibooks but also on other projects. --Derbeth talk 20:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support I know Az from other wikis and from IRC and my impressions of him have made me believe that he is definitely trustworthy enough for this tool and will sue it well. Cbrown1023 talk 01:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support - I'm not always contrarian. Also, it is very useful for this tool to be available to as many possible trusted users as is possible, especially to keep each other in check and not to turn this into a burdensome task. --Rob Horning 10:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, per http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029782.html, I must decline this nomination as I do not meet the age requirement in the jurisdiction that I currently live in. --Az1568 (Talk) 02:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

edit
  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Ameisenigel: Late response, but were the users in question notified? --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 09:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I disagree with the removal. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
That is why I was a little confused with the two opposes. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 03:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ah, I see—that makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarification! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Requests_for_permissions/Az1568&oldid=4422010"