Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Ђорђе Д. Божовић

I'm developing the Serbian language learning textbook, Serbian Grammar, and Serbian History modules. While working on these books, many vandals will certainly appear. Sysop rights can allow me to block and stop them. I could erase improper pictures and articles that can appear, too. I already am an administrator at Serbian and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. I came to English Wikibooks two months ago, and I've got about 500 edits now, but that number increases by every day, as I'm writing Serbian lessons and texts... --Ђорђе Д. Божовић 18:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]

• Are sysop rights necessary for you? Do you want to use them only at Serbian books? What about your knowledge of Wikibooks policies and Wiki formatting? --Derbeth 21:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]
  • I've been at Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, Wikisources and Wikibooks for a nice time. I shall use sysop rights properly. Developing Serbian textbook will last about two or three years at least, even more. I first came to Serbian Wikipedia to write a few articles about Zlatibor Mtn., tourist destination where I live, and since then I've contributed to dozens of other articles, and I've became an every-day member of Serbian Wikipedia community. Just like here: I'm starting with Serbian textbook, but I hope to stay and contribute more to Wikibooks.--Ђорђе Д. Божовић 21:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[]

• Comment: I'm leaning in favor of support for this request, but I'm not quite prepared to formally give it yet. Gaining adminship is not supposed to be that big of a deal, and certainly it appears as though you are working hard on what is a tough subject, and not everybody can get everywhere at once. My only major concern is not the number of edits but the very short time that you've been here participating. Often (and I've done this myself... so I have some experience with this) an author will work very hard for a few weeks and then "burn out" real quick. An ordinary registered user can do quite a bit to block vandals, reverting pages, and even place the IP address or user name of the vandals in the Vandalism in Progress pages, where they are going to get some significant attention from the existing base of admins here. On the other hand, if there is some significant vandalism going on with these pages, they can be "protected", and this user given admin privileges to edit the protected content. My question is if the vandalism appears to be politically motivated or is it just random idiots who think they've found a dark corner of Wikibooks and just want to make mischief? There is a certain group of vandals who think Wikibooks is a cool place to hang out because vandalism tends to last a little bit longer here than on Wikipedia. We are getting better, and there are now enough admins to keep most of them in check now, but it is still a weaker project than Wikipedia. The issue of protecting the pages for this Wikibook is a separate issue from giving you adminship, BTW, so let's not confuse the two issues. --Rob Horning 02:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[]

• I do agree with Rob that new writers can burn themselves out quickly, and that we need to worry that our contributers are spreading themselves out too thinly by gaining sysops for many wikiprojects. However, I see no reason why a contributer with long-term plans for their particular niche, and with a contribution history that is growing at a nice rate, should be denied adminships on the premise that they might burn out. I vote in Support here because we do need more admins, but we mostly need more admins with vision and determination. That, and it's "No Big Deal". --Whiteknight 19:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[]

• Support - Solid edit history. - Aya ^T E C 15:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Done - Aya ^T E C 15:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Thank you!--Ђорђе Д. Божовић 17:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[]

The below administrators have been inactive for one year or longer besides a few spare edits. These users (except where noted) have been contacted on their talk page as well as e-mailed if possible to inform them of this process. All users listed below (except where noted) will have their sysop rights removed on 7 Feb 2008 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 23:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[]

I don-t wish to be disruptive but what is a 'non-outlying' edit? What does it mean? According to the logs Ђорђе has been active in the past few months although certainly not as active as in the past. Xania ^talk 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Not disruptive at all. I have responded below. -withinfocus 02:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Request made at Meta. -withinfocus 00:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Both done  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Last non-outlying edit 6 Jan 2008.

5 days ago? Xania ^talk 22:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[]

S/He's got 11 edits on Jan 6, but hadn't edited for over a year before that. As well, has no log entries since December 8, 2007. I'd call that highly inactive.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 22:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[]

I put this one up after scanning every admin's contribs a few days ago and after a second glance this user did a spurt of editing in recent months and so now I am slightly unsure. I've tried to contact the user and have received no response. Does anyone actively object this nomination? I know we shouldn't discuss the policy here but we can certainly question where the inactivity line was drawn. I'd be willing to drop this one if we have users here who are opposed to the inactivity date. -withinfocus 02:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Yes, this seems to qualify for an extended period of inactivity. Just because edited few days back... a year is a long time. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Comment I just want to direct people to this users Original RFA. The user requested adminship only to help prevent vandalism to the Serbian book. A number of people expressed concern at his promotion (myself included), and he was promoted to admin after receiving only 2 votes in support (I was one of the support votes, but i'll admit now that my rationale was lacking). He has about 150 log entries total since 2006, the majority of which are image uploads or page moves, not admin tasks. The admin log entries he has are almost all page deletions in the Serbian book, not blocking vandalism, or helping to delete other pages. People don't need admin tools just to help develop a single book. We've rejected many nominations on those grounds in the past. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[]

He did get past just his one book and has been active in other areas of Wikibooks besides this one area. I've also mentioned him and his account explicitly when en.wikipedia was trying to get rid of non-latin user names.... something IMHO is a bunch of BS that I'm very glad hasn't spread here to this project. That this one issue wasn't even raised at all when he became an admin shows how much of a non-issue that really is. 9 admin actions in the log and the recent activity/contributions do suggest that he is monitoring Wikibooks a little bit, and watching his account... what I thought was the main rationale for de-sysopping. I certainly don't consider him to be a problem user by any means. --Rob Horning (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[]

I think the definition of "activity" can be left open for debate. However, this user hasn't participated (to my knowledge) in any discussions on RFA, VFD, VFU, or anywhere in the reading room. He hasn't combated any vandalism anywhere except in his own books (and they are not a common target, as was assumed in his original RFA). The only pages he has deleted are pages in the Serbian and the Wikiversity "School of Magic" for fewer then 100 total page deletions, with 8 of them having been made in the past year (all on December 7 2007). He has no user blocks, no page imports and no page protections/unprotections in his entire history as an admin here. If he needs 8 pages in the Serbian book deleted, he can tag all 8 of them with {{delete}} for the same amount of energy as what he is doing now. we can call him "active" or "inactive" or whatever, but he really isn't using the tools and hasn't demonstrated a need to have them. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[]

I agree entirely. If this user were to have an RFA right now, I don't think they'd be able to show the need for the tools. This may not technically fall within the "inactivity" clause of the policy, but we should desysop them regardless.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 19:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Agree to desysop. Limited access just for your own books isn't suitable nowadays, and anyhow, he's been barely active since promotion. I'd prefer admins who were regulars here, not those who stopped by occasionally and not knowing what they are doing - especially with no discussions in admin, or otherwise discussion pages. Majorly (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[]