Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Whoop whoop pull up

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

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Not done. Not ready yet. –– Thenub 314 (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user has a solid track record. I'm a good-faith contributor, and have been very helpful, especially to Chess, Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter, and Micronations, but also to many, many other books on Wikibooks. I would use administrator rights wisely and not abuse them, and I think I would make a good administrator. --Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 00:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mild

Oppose I have no quibble with this editor's intentions or faith, the only problem I have with his track record is that it doesn't seem to me to be quite long enough to warrant an Admin role. A look at his edit record would indicate fewer than a thousand edits on WB articles at present, and while I hesitate to cast aspersions, I'm not sure that I'd consider his contributions to the Muggles' Guide to be very helpful yet. Helpful, yes, but not yet complete; he seems to have missed the project standards page, but is, I'll grant, making a reasonably creditable job of detecting and following standards despite that. Additionally, it seems to me that we are a little admin heavy at the moment for a project of our size... Chazz (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no doubt that one day Whoop whoop will be a good candidate, but I suggest that at present he is inclined to let his enthusiasm run away with him.--Wisden (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, try again in 6 months or a year. I've seen a number of edit summaries and engagement with other editors that I think show you need more experience here and the way this community works. You also need to demonstrate you are able to handle difficult situations with other editors (e.g., where your views are opposed) as this is essential when dealing with borderline disruptive editors and vandals. QU ^TalkQu 08:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+Administrator

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Not done . This has been open for 10 days and has gathered no unqualified support which is strongly indicative that consensus in support will not be achieved. From the comments made the community would like to see more participation in general and specifically in areas that would demonstrate "administrative know-how". This could include contributing to RFDs, tagging pages for speedy deletion, etc. As things stand the community doesn't really know you or see a need for you to have the additional tools. There isn't a "waiting time" required before another RFP, and nobody is suggesting you'd be a bad administrator, they just want to see more from you. QU ^TalkQu 12:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a first request for administrator rights many months ago; it was rejected due to my still being a relative newbie at the time. It was suggested that I wait and renominate myself when I had more experience with Wikibooks. I am no longer a newbie, and I promise to use administrator rights wisely if I am given them. My best regards, Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 22:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you describe your need for the tools ? That is, what administrative actions will you be more interested in executing and why you feel that the community will be benefited by granting you access to the tools. Have in mind that a time presence in the project does not equate to experience, even life experience is an important fact, in that respect your apparent age may be a problem for some, I think that if you explain your need for the tools and how you see yourself using them would address those types of concerns...

There are a lot of pending tasks that do not require the tools, from categorizing project, executing requested merges, splinting books into smaller sections and in general detection and correction of vandalism, copyright infringement, NPOV violation or erroneous edits, to fill anyone's time and desire to contribute administratively to the project without dedicating themselves to contributing content. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would use the tools to delete unnecessary and useless pages, undelete pages which were wrongly deleted, and block users who persistently vandalise the pages of Wikibooks or are being consistently and persistently disruptive in their edits, or simply show a complete lack of competence in editing Wikibooks. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 16:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been taking a look on your activity and noticed that you failed to tag the original pages that you have moved for speedy deletion, I was especially interested in looking what type of material would you speedy delete. As for the need for the tools speedy deletions rarely have a backlog of more that 1 day, so the need for more people being able to exercise the administrative deletion is not pressing on the community and undeletions are very rarely performed, thanks to our good record to listen to valid objections and involve interested parties on the discussions about keeping or deleting content. Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll await other people's opinions and a response to Panic's questions before I state whether I am in support or against but I notice that your image says that you are young. If you're under 16 then I'm not comfortable having administrators who are kids.--ЗAНИA

^talk 14:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've aged quite a bit since taking that photo. It's just that I don't have any newer photos of myself that I can use. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 16:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Age limitation is not part of our policy guiding the attribution of the tools (it would be interesting to have a broader discussion about it), and there is a greater issue, the requirement for disclosing one's age and get a public indication about Wikibookians that are minors (that would concern me).

My primary concern is that we really do not know much about you (your mentality and community knowledge), no presence in normal policy or general discussions. If we look on the attribution of the admin flag historically, it has mostly been granted by someone else proposing that one would be a good admin. Requesting the tools for oneself is mostly done in a need to use basis, for oneself or for the community. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that there are no age policies (except for 'crats (or is it Cu's), I believe) but that was just my opinion. As users don't have to disclose their age then it isn't normally an issue. Hopefully others will voice their opinions soon.--ЗAНИA

^talk 20:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to oppose more on the grounds of lack of participation on general discussions and need for the tools than age itself, it is hard to define how mature one is in their decision and interactions with others solely based on age, I have come across very intelligent and well socialized kids as well as infantile adults. My personal believe is that from 13 to 20 people are generally developing and establishing the sense of self and how they will interact with others in society, finding their place and what is acceptable to them and others, undergoing huge mental transformations and open to a great influence of hormonal changes. Decision wise the admin tools do not permit to be very destructive, the worst that could happen would be seeing the tools as a power instrument to chastise others at will, they are not prone to kill anyone or make irreversible choices, and it would be extremely interesting to have an admin that could for instance focus and interact at a greater proximity to the community on Wikijunior, so to me the problem is that we really do not know Whoop whoop pull up very well.

I've read his posts and he seems very considerate and aware of others preoccupations and his own limitations (knowledge wise), not forceful and irreducible in his opinions. I have nothing bad to point out, seems a good kid and a good Wikibookian. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think participation in community discussions would go a long way towards demonstrating when and why you think the tools should be used, and towards gaining the community's trust. --dark lama 14:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]