Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Jguk

Although a relatively new Wikibookian, I have much experience with the MediaWiki software through more than 20,000 edits on wikipedia dating back to September 2004. Initially I was reluctant to put myself forward for sysop access rights so soon after joining a new project, but I have begun trying to bring more organisation into Wikibooks (see my contribution history), and this tends to end up leaving lots of useless redirects. At present, I have been nominating these for speedy deletion (having checked that all links to the page have been adjusted for). Sysop rights would allow me to do this instantly, which is why I am seeking sysop rights at this early stage. Of course, if I was unsure of anything, I would seek a second opinion. On Wikibooks I am developing a magnum opus, Taxation in the United Kingdom. I'd also hope to contribute to Wikijunior and I am currently working up a first page on Wikijunior Kings and Queens of England prior to nominating the proposed book to be added to the Wikijunior canon. Further evidence of my bona fides can be taken from my being appointed Treasurer of Wiki Educational Resources Limited, the company that will act as the UK Wikimedia chapter (see m:Wikimedia UK, and my contributions on wikipedia, which have included numerous featured articles and featured lists, as well as the first featured portal, Jguk 16:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[]

Discussion

• I don't know, just two weeks on the project... I'm not fully convinced. --Derbeth ^talk 19:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[]
  • I agree it's early, and if the view is come back in two month's time, I'll understand. I'm only asking now as I find that whilst trying to do some organising of WB's content, I'm creating redirects that should be deleted or finding other stuff that can clearly be deleting. I'm ok with just marking them up for speedy deletion, but it would be quicker and easier to do it myself, Jguk 19:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[]

Votes

• Support --Cspurrier 16:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[]
• Oppose. This isn't a strong opposition, but i definately think you could stand to wait a little while before seeking higher access privledges. I was made into a sysop relatively early in my wikibooks career, so i don't think that there should be a large time requirement. I think what people want to see is some kind of indication that you are here to stay for a while, and if we make you an admin, that you won't get "burnt out", and stop contributing. We do need more admins, but we don't need to make people admins, and have them only work on one book, or to contribute for a month and leave forever. Prove to us that you will be here for a while, and I will definately vote for you next time. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 21:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[]

After reviewing his contributions, I'm inclined to change my vote. I will vote Support now, under the assumption that he is a member who is here to stay. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 14:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[]

• Oppose - Too new. Not enough experience around Wikibooks. To me, having a long list of accolades at other projects doesn't improve status here. It may be good to know in some cases, but in many others it just looks like fluff. We don't want "souvenir" admins. Spending more time here first will look better. -Matt 22:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[]

Support - I hope he keeps with it. 1600 edits in less than a month is insane. Just take it at a decent pace so you don't get overwhelmed and leave the project. The main reason I'm changing my vote is because I think he will keep with it and provide a large amount of help with cleaning up a lot of the mess here. I wish I could do more of it myself. -Matt 04:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[]

• Weak oppose - I agree somewhat with the above statements. You just need to prove yourself a little more within Wikibooks, and show that you plan to stick around a little bit. You can still help with vandalism, and even the vandals aren't as active as they are on Wikipedia. Request this again in a couple of months, and I will likely vote to support you instead. --Rob Horning 16:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support -- Jguk, you need the ability to delete pages. --Kernigh 06:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support I changed my opinion, we need somebody to delete candidates for speedy deletion - they wait for deletion too long now. I don't think Jguk will overuse sysop powers. --Derbeth ^talk 10:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[]

IMHO this is not a reason (the speedy deletion candidate bin overflowing) sufficient to granting everybody admin status. I completely emptied the category several times this month myself, before the big bru-ha-ha over Wikimania content took up my time to have to work on stuff elsewhere on Wikibooks, or at least respond to the birrage of questions. Still, we could use a few more administrators here. --Rob Horning 13:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[]

• Support -- John N. 20:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[]

Made sysop. --Derbeth ^talk 20:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[]

While I have been antagonistic toward this user, I do think he has done quite a bit of good for Wikibooks, and I would like to provide an alterate nomination for Checkuser privileges besides User:Uncle G, as it appears Uncle G has dropped off the radar as of late. Certainly I don't see that this user would abuse checkuser rights and is not going to be the cause of blatant vandalism that is usually the target of a checkuser scan. Please support me with this user so we can have a "second" user to assist with checkuser scans on Wikibooks. BTW, count this nomination as one of the votes for support. --Rob Horning 11:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[]

• Neutral. I know what good User:Jguk has done around here, and I know his efforts in fighting vandalism. Also, I realize that checkuser privledges aren't worthwhile unless the user is active, and User:Uncle G is barely active as of late. However, I feel that in past couple weeks, User:Jguk has acted too rashly on a number of different occasions. Regardless of justification, actions that are too heavy-handed make regular readers and contributors weary and upset. Now, If User:Jguk does manage to gather a solid number of votes here, I will assume that the actions that I perceive as being rash were not considered as such by the community, and I will change my vote accordingly. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 15:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[]

  For myself, the acceptance or not of checkuser privileges is independent of this user's admin activities and should not be considered a referendum on his actions. For myself, I believe that checkuser privileges should be extended to every bureaucrat on every project, and having to go through this silly vote simply annoys me to no end. I have made my opinion on this known to the powers that be, and the supposed abuse of checkuser scans is something I can't see really being a problem even in the worst possible situation. This is just another tool to help fight vandalism, and something we desperately need on Wikibooks, especially since the software is now written to verify users. Until now, this is a Wikipedia-only tool, and something that has been widely acknowledged as something that should be permitted for non-Wikipedia projects. I find it unfortunate that he has declined his nomination for this, but I can understand why he did so and thank him for the reasonable reply on this matter. --Rob Horning 16:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I very much appreciate Rob's nomination, and in particular the spirit in which he has made it. As Whiteknight indirectly notes, I am a wikibookian who likes to be bold and to update and change things when I believe it is better for wikibooks to do so (and in the belief that I make far many more correct decisions than I make wrong ones). Whilst I would hope that no wikibookian would believe that I would abuse CheckUser rights if I had them, I do appreciate that some users would have concern if someone with a reputation for being bold has those rights. Therefore I'd like to respectfully decline Rob's nomination of me. I would add that, if another currently active admin was nominated, or nominated himself, for CheckUser rights, I would support him, Jguk 18:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[]

• Support (yeah I know he didn't accept, but it's silly to not grant this) AlbertCahalan 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[]

• I certainly did not mean to disparage you. Anytime there is a policy discussion or a vote, the same couple "power users" seem to weigh in, and most of the general wikibooks public doesn't voice any opinion. Look at VFD, or even on this page, where the same 5 or 6 people consistantly weigh in, and votes are settled with less then that number of total votes cast. My point with all this is that if the community in general dislikes a particular user, we are unlikely to hear about it, because most people don't voice their opinions on such matters. With checkuser rights however, we need an inordinately large number of votes to pass. This means that the community at large does need to pay attention to the vote, and voice an opinion one way or another. If your actions have ruffled the feathers around here, it will come out during the vote. If however everybody likes you and appreciates your work around here, it will become clearly apparent. I think that you should reconsider your nomination here, because we do need a second checkuser, and your name features prominantly when discussing vandal fighters. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 17:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[]

User declined nomination. -withinfocus 01:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[]

• Last edit was 18:04, February 25, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Whiteknight‎ (Wikibooks:Blocking policy)
• Last sysop action was 11:46, January 14, 2007 Jguk (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikijunior Alphabet/Alternative version" ‎ (restore)

The following administrators have been inactive for a minimum of one year, and are to be desysoped per policy. The request will be made at Meta in one month's time. The users below have been informed on their talk page, as well as by email if one was confirmed. As always, no discussion is needed; policy discussion should happen at Wikibooks talk:Administrators, not here.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[]