Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/KelvSYC

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 only because it appears that the admin ranks on this wiki are woefully undermanned. Deletion decisions on VFD take too long, and relatively little action is taken against vandals and spammers. Also, the lack of any hard policy standards with regards to book naming, fair-use images, among other things, is a serious issue that needs to be addresssed. I believe that I can contribute to this, and perhaps make existing Wikibooks conform to such a standard when it is made. Some would argue that I could do this even if I was not an admin, but as an admin, it would have a sense of legitimacy.

As for my contributions, I am the founder of two Wikibooks, the largest of which is the Pokémon family of books. I was listed as the contributor with the most amount of edits in February 2005 trying to upload all of the data to that book.

I am not an admin on any other Wikimedia wiki, nor do I have an intention of applying as an admin at any other Wikimedia wiki. I feel that I can add a lot more to this wiki if I were an admin.

KelvSYC 17:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support TUF-KAT 16:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Gentgeen 22:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note, this user was admin'd, but not recorded here. - Aya ^T C 21:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[]

The below administrators / bureaucrats have been inactive for one year or longer besides a few spare edits. These users have been contacted on their talk page as well as e-mailed if possible to inform them of this process. All users listed below will have their sysop rights removed on 21 Dec 2006 and a consensus decision is not needed; this section is serving to inform the community of their de-adminship. Should a nominated admin come back and contest the nomination, some discussion may occur and the once-admin will be able to re-apply for adminship at a later date. -withinfocus 03:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[]

User:TUF-KAT has already been alerted, and has stated he accepts this on my talk page. I have sent messages to User:Aya on his wikipedia and meta account pages during the last de-adminship, and have not yet heard a response (i think he is MIA). I thought I had sent messages to the others as well, but I can't seem to find record of that so I will send them again. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[]

A request for de-adminship for these users has been made at Meta. -withinfocus 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[]

The below users have had their rights removed. This will be archived shortly. -withinfocus 16:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[]

Last non-outlying edit 14 October 2005.

• I strongly oppose setting this precedent. I resent that this is being done without consensus. I am disillusioned that admins, who "are just regular users with some additional restrictions lifted," are subject to de-adminship without egregious error as reasoning. I think that old outlying edits are a poor circumstance for de-adminship. I oppose de-adminship until discussion is encouraged and consensus is reached. --Iamunknown 01:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[]
• I understand your points and agree that inactive admins shouldn't be removed. The only concern I have is with the fact that inactive accounts could be compromised without the real user knowing. This is a slim possibility but still possible. Xania 02:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[]
  • That is a real concern. Since all sysop-actions are now revertable, however, is it a valid argument for de-sysopping? --Iamunknown 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[]
• It's not that this is being done without concensus. Concensus was already acheived when we made the current text of Wikibooks:Administrators official. Working on that proposal was a very long and difficult discussion that required lots of compromise on all sides. That policy says that admins who have been absent for more then 1 year can be removed without discussion. If you would like to propose changes to that policy, you are more then welcome, but this isn't the place to do it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Whenever I propose a discussion or a change, I meet a roadblock. What difference would there be here? --Iamunknown 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[]
• If he wants the Admin stuff back, I'd be glad to support a renomination or a rerequest. But in the meantime, I think it is better to play it safe and deactivate old Admin accounts --Dragontamer 02:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[]
  • This (and the other arguments..so I'm not targeting you) fail to recognise that WB:Rfa is a test of whether or not the community trusts the user to have certain restrictions lifted. In that mindset, there is little reason (except for what Xania pointed out) in my mind why admins should be de-sysoped. --Iamunknown 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[]

First off, it isn't my intention to confront you with a "road block". If you would like to discuss the issue here that's perfectly fine, but given the current state of policy, I think it would be wrong to assume that the proceedings above will be halted/delayed/abandoned as a result of this discussion. WB:RFA is a test of whether the community trusts a particular user, but that trust is not a blank check, nor a life-time membership into some kind of "admins club". There are plenty of active users around here who are well trusted and who don't become admins, so clearly trust is not the only requirement. The only difference between adminship and some sort of barnstar (besides the fact that people who aren't bcrats can hand out barnstars) is that adminship comes with tools and responsibilities. If the tools aren't put to good use, there is no sense promoting an admin in the first place. If a person is trusted, but doesnt want/need additional responsibility, then send them a "you are great" message and an appropriate barnstar to show that they are trusted and appreciated. Tools are to be used, and if you don't use them, then you don't need to have them. You can be a perfectly trusted member of this community, and have demonstrated no particular need for admin tools.

Another point that is worth mentioning (and one that i'm sure you have noticed) is that things have changed significantly around here in the past few months. Old policies have been deleted, new policies have been created, guidlines have been modified, etc. Who is to say, in the face of this shifting landscape, that a user who was trusted to implement the policies from a year ago can still be trusted to properly interpret and implement those policies today? People who arent here, who aren't familiar with our policies, and who aren't familiar with our community are just as good as people who never came in the first place. Under that reasoning, I would compare users who haven't been here in a year or more to people who never came in the first place, and I am not prepared to have relative "newbies" with admin tools running around. I hope this explains, at least, what my rationale is. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[]

I disagree with you on many points, but I don't think either of us is right or wrong: our philosophies differ. I will stop disputation here and bring it up at a more appropriate talk page at a later date if I feel so inclined. --Iamunknown 02:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[]

I will note that this is an issue that has been from my perspective beat to death, although surprisingly with "concensus" swinging against culling admins to supporting the culling policies. There is no reason to believe that the "concensus" could also swing back again to allowing admins to remain for awhile longer or to merely keep track of "active" and "inactive" admins. Certainly this would be worth bringing up again for the 4th or 5th time on the Staff Lounge if only to air the issues again. BTW, for myself, I tend to support the idea of admins being a permanent position unless they are overly abusive but that is only weak support. --Rob Horning 17:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[]