Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Andreas Ipp

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.

I'd like to apply for admin status in order to be able to edit the main page. I know I am a relatively new user here, but I am also a very careful editor - first reading through talk pages to see how things have been working before, which ideas were rejected, which were accepted, partly going through the "history" of pages, before I make changes.

As an example, I initiated the voting for the book of the month (February) not without prior studying the German Wikibooks "Buch des Monats" ("book of the month") that is working successfully there, and studying different voting systems on MetaWiki and Wikipedia, before adjusting a set of voting rules for our purposes.

I also created the new {{stage|...}} templates which in the ALT text show a description and the assignment date when placing the mouse above, added the Help:Development stages page, and did numerous minor correction contributions to various books. I unified the cycling process on the main page of the "Featured Wikibooks", "New Wikibooks", and "Struggling Wikibooks" templates (such that all entries contain a date with the newest book first - I went through each template's history to set the correct dates!), and reverted a dozen "Chinese" vandalisms.

I would need admin status to more prominently and correctly place the voting link on the main page (right now it is in the Featured template since this is not blocked), and to prominently place the Book of the month once it has been elected.

All of the edits will be in the spirit to present Wikibooks not only to writers, but also to readers. When I came here the first time, not so long ago, I was quite disappointed when clicking on a few books of the main page to find that they are no more than what Wikipedians would call a "stub". Only after spending some time, starting to reevaluate development stages and time-stamping them, I noticed what marvellous books are hidden in Wikibooks. I would like to promote those diamonds of treasure to the casual reader who might not spend as much time to browse around, while keeping the open character of Wikibooks to still attract writers. "Book of the month", rotating "Featured books" or "most active books" is only the beginning of a very gradually introduced set of changes to enhance the Wikibook experience - both for readers and for writers. --Andreas Ipp 17:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support, while he is certainly quite new, he has more than shown good faith towards our lil library, and he has initiated quite a few good inititaves. I also agree with Jimbo, in that adminship shouldnt be that big a deal. The bellman 07:12, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support: He's done great work and he has my trust. MShonle 23:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. Dysprosia 07:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Andreas Ipp 08:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For the below, please see the recent discussion. The below editors have not contributed within the last six months or are performing little to no administrative tasks.

Comment: It's now been a month since this discussion was started. I'm therefore asking a steward to come and de-admin those for whom there is at least 80% support for de-adminning, Jguk 14:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[]

I think the better solution is to ask to de-sysop only users where there are no oppose votes. 80% is not much when so few people are voting and Marshman is a sysop. --Derbeth ^talk 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[]

I don't think any 80% rule should be used. The quality of the argument should define the action. Even though one oppose exists in several of the admins listed, the reasons shown were pretty quickly dismissed and the case for those users is still pretty solid looking. A single oppose from a contested admin should not stop a de-sysopping. In addition, it would be nice to see if the Steward can offer any action towards the recent inappropriate comments made and possibly make a decision on all cases. -Matt 15:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[]

The steward's role is not to make decisions, but instead to carry out actions for which there is already community consensus. Looking below, and not counting "neutral" votes as presumably being neutral means that you are publicly saying you don't want to influence anything one way or another, there are a number of "nominations" that have 100% support. It's fair to say that they have consensus - absent a rash of new comments now, those users should now be de-sysopped. There are then a number of "nominations" with a single oppose and four supports - is that consensus or do we allow one user to have a veto? Does that answer change if there are more support votes? Personally I think a 4-1 margin is sufficient, but if you disagree with that, at what level do the supports win the day - 5-1? 6-1? 100-1? As far as the marshman nomination is concerned, it is clear that some users have strong opinions on this one - it is equally clear that there is currently no consensus to de-sysop him - and I trust those that support that nomination accept, albeit reluctantly, that that is the case, Jguk 15:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[]

I disagree with using vote counts as decision tools. For instance, although there is one opposing vote in some of the de-sysopping cases, I believe that oppose does not have any sort of backing and has been defeated. Therefore, the de-sysopping should occur. Consensus has still been reached even though a lone dissenter objected. You yourself corrected the opposing vote quite adequately. The Steward still must make a judgement call on what the consensus actually is and that it what I am referring to. I think the Steward could see through any of the small oppositions. Regarding the one heavily-contested case, I simply hope the Steward can possibly add some insight into where the voting may actually be headed, especially since various user interaction policies were violated during the discussion. -Matt 21:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[]

To note, I have requested action on many of the below cases over at meta. -Matt 04:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[]

(last edit:04:57, 12 May 2005; last log entry:01:28, 10 May 2005)

• Support - Has not edited in many months. Most likely the admin's knowledge of policy is quite out of date. -Matt 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support Derbeth ^talk 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support - edited from 8 January 2005 to 12 May 2005. No longer a wikibookian, Jguk 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support I left a message on his talk page. --JMRyan 23:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[]
• Oppose 12-month period of inactivity not up. Many users tire of this place and go on to other things for awhile. Maybe attempting to contact by email would be more fair. - marsh 02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[]
• Neutral --Kernigh 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[]
• Oppose I don't ever remember a formal debate or vote on a 12 month inactivity period, just a discussion about one maybe being a good idea. As such, holding them to such a policy is unfair and a bad idea. --Gabe Sechan 18:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[]

No concensus over several months of voting. De-sysopping failed. -Matt 02:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[]

For the below, please see the recent discussion. The below editors have not contributed within the last six months or are performing little to no administrative tasks.

Comment: It's now been a month since this discussion was started. I'm therefore asking a steward to come and de-admin those for whom there is at least 80% support for de-adminning, Jguk 14:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[]

I think the better solution is to ask to de-sysop only users where there are no oppose votes. 80% is not much when so few people are voting and Marshman is a sysop. --Derbeth ^talk 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[]

I don't think any 80% rule should be used. The quality of the argument should define the action. Even though one oppose exists in several of the admins listed, the reasons shown were pretty quickly dismissed and the case for those users is still pretty solid looking. A single oppose from a contested admin should not stop a de-sysopping. In addition, it would be nice to see if the Steward can offer any action towards the recent inappropriate comments made and possibly make a decision on all cases. -Matt 15:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[]

The steward's role is not to make decisions, but instead to carry out actions for which there is already community consensus. Looking below, and not counting "neutral" votes as presumably being neutral means that you are publicly saying you don't want to influence anything one way or another, there are a number of "nominations" that have 100% support. It's fair to say that they have consensus - absent a rash of new comments now, those users should now be de-sysopped. There are then a number of "nominations" with a single oppose and four supports - is that consensus or do we allow one user to have a veto? Does that answer change if there are more support votes? Personally I think a 4-1 margin is sufficient, but if you disagree with that, at what level do the supports win the day - 5-1? 6-1? 100-1? As far as the marshman nomination is concerned, it is clear that some users have strong opinions on this one - it is equally clear that there is currently no consensus to de-sysop him - and I trust those that support that nomination accept, albeit reluctantly, that that is the case, Jguk 15:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[]

I disagree with using vote counts as decision tools. For instance, although there is one opposing vote in some of the de-sysopping cases, I believe that oppose does not have any sort of backing and has been defeated. Therefore, the de-sysopping should occur. Consensus has still been reached even though a lone dissenter objected. You yourself corrected the opposing vote quite adequately. The Steward still must make a judgement call on what the consensus actually is and that it what I am referring to. I think the Steward could see through any of the small oppositions. Regarding the one heavily-contested case, I simply hope the Steward can possibly add some insight into where the voting may actually be headed, especially since various user interaction policies were violated during the discussion. -Matt 21:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[]

To note, I have requested action on many of the below cases over at meta. -Matt 04:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[]

Last non-outlying edit 12 May 2005.

This user does not have a valid email address here, nor on any other wikis. This user has not been active on any wiki (en.wiki, commons, or meta) since mid 2005. --User:Whiteknight17:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Rights removed on 1 Nov 2006. -withinfocus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[]