Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Whiteknight

+Administrator

After a good amount of time to think it over, i decided to request adminship. My primary concern (and primary expertise) is in the area of Electrical Engineering, a subject that wikibooks currently has a dirth of information on. I have added 2 new books on the shelf, Circuit Theory, and Circuit Theory 2, and would like to add more in the future once these first two become self-supporting. I would also like to work towards a series of standard Engineering Templates, and perhaps even start preparing some general guidelines for future Engineering Wikibook writers and contributers. --Whiteknight 18:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]

  • Support -- Although you're relatively new to our fair project you do have the knack for writing, and we need to get more contributors like you. MShonle 21:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[]
  • Support - A fine-looking edit history. Can't see any problems here. - Aya T E C 18:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[]
  • Support, good contributors get the rewards they deserve. I wholeheartedly stand by Jimbo's proclamation that adminship should be "no big deal". GarrettTalk 01:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Done - Aya T E C 11:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[]

+Bureaucrat

I want to test the waters a little bit, and request Bureaucratship. I've been a user here for a good amount of time, but I wouldn't by any means consider myself an "old timer" or anything like that. Wikibooks may not need many bureaucrats, but I don't think it is a good idea for us to only have one. User:Derbeth is a good contributor, a good vandal fighter, and a good bureaucrat. And when he finally gets those check user rights, i'm sure he'll be even better at what he does. Again however, no matter how great User:Derbeth is, he is still only one person, and in the interests of stability, I think that we need at least 2 or more bureaucrats, to ensure that this place functions smoothly.

I may not be as active as Derbeth is at fighting vandalism, but I certainly try to do my part. I am a very active contributor and I am active in matters of policy. However, I spend very little time working on the bookshelves, the community pages, templates, etc. I've found that I can't be all things to all people, and I have instead focused my attention on a limited number of projects. If people vote no, I will understand and won't take it personally. If this vote is opposed, There are other people that I have in mind to nominate for bureaucratship in the future.

I will be away on vacation for the next week, and will be unable to respond to questions or comments until then.

  • Support Bureaucrats, as far as I'm aware, have one and only one function - to promote admin candidates if it is clear there is community consensus to do so - it is a very limited role, but one which the community will want only a highly trusted user to have. I have for a while thought that it would be better for us to have more than one active bureaucrat (it just makes sense to have cover available if needed). Whiteknight is willing to take on this role, and I would have no difficulty with him (or indeed any other currently active admin who volunteers) taking on this role, Jguk 18:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support No reason why not. Methinks we need a couple more bureaucrats around here anyway. BTW, Debereth's little secret is the IRC channel bot, which automatically catches most vanalisms :-p Check it out. --Dragontamer 19:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support --Cspurrier 23:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support He has been a very hard-working admin for a long time and I am impressed by his activity at WB:VFD. I don't remember any conflicts regarding his person. --Derbeth talk 21:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support - Mainly on the principle that we need to have more than one active bureaucrat. The time is ripe to "promote" another bureaucrat. One other "job duty" of a bureaucrat beyond admin duties is also to review 'bot requests, and if given my druthers, to have check user rights as well. The significance is mainly to demonstrate an "extra stripe" and show that a bureaucrat is widely respected within the community. Whiteknight has shown this ability, and has done many useful and productive things for Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 15:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]
    I can't say that I am active enough (yet) in fighting vandalism to warrant Check-user rights. I am, however, looking for more opportunities to become useful and productive. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 15:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support - Active user, does good work here. -Matt 16:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support - having more than one active b'crat is a good idea. Gentgeen 23:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support - Krischik T 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support Hard-working user who has done a lot of good for this project. Giving him another reason to spend more time here is a very good idea. --hagindaz 22:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support A talented versitle individual always willing to help you if he can. A3392 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support Thank you for all your help; our class has learned and benefited, from all of your contributions.DorothyD 01:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 01:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[]

I thank everybody for the support. I have been made a Bureaucrat by the stewards. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[]

+CheckUser

I am listing myself here for a number of reasons, and I hope that nobody assumes that I am simply trying to grab for additional rights/responsibilities here. I have posted an official request that User:Derbeth be granted checkuser rights, and meta:Requests_for_permissions#en.wikibooks.org that request is on hold] because official wikimedia policy still requires that a project have at least two checkusers, or none at all. To become a checkuser, wikimedia policy requires that a user accumulate at least 25 votes of support. User:Derbeth has 26 affirmative votes (by my count) currently, so we need at least one more. User:Uncle G had several votes, but not enough, and support for him seems to have decreased because he has been less active lately then he used to be. User:Jguk refused his nomination entirely (despite my urging to the contrary), and User:Cspurrier has only attracted 2 comments.

In my time here at wikibooks, I think that I have shown myself to be active, trustworthy, and helpful. I have many opinions, but I try not to be petulant. I have not been nearly as active at combatting vandalism as some other users, but I have started utilizing IRC and the recent changes list to be more active in that area. I do think however, that i could attract the necessary 25 votes, and therefore bring checkuser rights to the wikibooks project. Some people might say that wikibooks doesn't need checkuser rights, or that checkuser rights shouldn't exist at all, but according to the vote count for User:Derbeth, current community opinion appears to be in favor of these rights. If it is any consolation, I am not one to abuse such rights. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 04:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[]

  • Support. I think it's about this gets resolved, as it's been floating around for 8 months, and both users are active and probably will be for a while. It's not as much a pressing need as a matter of preemptive action, and also a tool that may be needed under the newly proposed rules for voting, should sockpuppetry ever become an issue. Xerol Oplan 04:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support - We clearly need admins with checkuser tools, and I have faith in Whiteknight's discretion in using them. --SB_Johnny | talk 09:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support - I have long time suggested that all bureaucrats, as a matter of simply becoming a bureaucrat, can and ought to be given checkuser privileges. Those WMF board members that are seriously concerned about potential abuses due to lax standards for bureaucrats should instead seek to tighten the standards for bureaucrats instead, as the arguments go both ways. It is about time that we get somebody here on Wikibooks to get this accomplished, and for me it isn't that big of a deal. Even if you tried deliberately to abuse checkuser privilages, I contend that there is little that a user could do that would be of permanent harm, as I've expressed numerous times on Foundation-l over this issue. The 25 necessary votes is simply BS, and proof that some individuals think there is only Wikipedia and a few loose cannons thinking they are involved in other projects. --Rob Horning 13:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support - Let's get a second user voted in. -withinfocus 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support AlbertCahalan 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support Whiteknight has been a tremendous help to our Human Physiology book, which is a class project. He has been very attentive to our newbie questions, has provided us with several valuable tips, has helped format our book to make it better, and has actively fought vandalism (he thwarted a major attack just today). I support increasing his admin privileges. Provophys 21:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support Whiteknight has helped everybody in our physiology class make changes and corrections to our chapters that we are writing for our grade. He knows all the best ways to do things and he has made our book a lot better than it would have been without him. I support him fully and think that he should have more administrative privileges. Thanks Whiteknight! Melissasmith 00:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Melissasmith[]
  • Support Mr. Knight has been very quick to assist us newbies in wiki script. He has always been prompt to answer questions and has taken the time to help us make our book the best it could be. We owe him brownies and cute single girl phone numbers .... --BrendaJohnson 02:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support WhiteKnight has been instrumental in the development of our book Human Physiology. He has continually been there to keep all of us rookies from drowning. He even saved us from the shark that invaded our little pool(book) and saved some authors from public humiliation. I feel that he is a great asset to wiki and should be given and trusted with any access that will help make these books better, to protect content and thwart vandals.Gartoly 04:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • SupportThanks for all you help with our book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Princess8107 (talk • contribs) .
  • Support Whitenight has been very helpful in writing our physiology book. We appreciate his help and willingness to answer any questions.--Jtervortn 20:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • SupportWhiteKnight has been a very resourceful "tool" for students such as myself. This is all new to me, and he has been willing to offer information and pictures to use at my discression. He has been a great help in keeping this book professional and is a great mentor to all. Thanks WhiteKnight!Coronagirl 23:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support WhiteKnight has helped us alot 204.113.66.11 19:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Unfortunately, this unsigned vote doesn't count. Votes need to have usernames, not IP addresses attached. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support Whiteknight has helped us a great deal. We are working on a textbook Human Physiology that could be used by thousands of physiology students in the future and has been an interesting learning experience. Whiteknight has been very informative and appears to always be online. This week every chapter in our book was vandalized which was very discouraging to some of us but whiteknight fixed the problem almost immediately, very reassuring to us that our book will last. Thanks for you help Whiteknight. Bigsmoot 19:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support Whiteknight has been a huge help to our physiology book. He has helped everyone in class on all the subjects covered. He's as much a part of this project as our class. Thanks.--Jami_7 19:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support Whiteknight has been a great help to our physiology class.Cody M. 19:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support --Derbeth talk 09:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • support anthonymitchell
  • Support --Pete Whiteknight helped me combat vandalism even before we had ever spoken and has, since, helped me to become a better Wikibooks user by answering a lot of my "newbie" questions. He is, in my opinion, a wonderful administrator and should have checkuser privileges. 13:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support --jesse Whiteknight is Awesome.


  • Support --leilijohnson Whiteknight has been a great help and watchdog for our physiology "book" project. I am thankful for his support and protection.

Done. The stewards have given me checkuser rights. Thanks to everybody who voted. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[]

+Oversight

Please see above. -withinfocus 00:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[]

Votes

  • Neutral is the best I can do until such time as the need is fully established and a rather more precise definition of what may in practice be deleted. --Herby talk thyme 15:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Support the user has checkuser rights and is very active in the community and will be able to deal with any problem that requires this specific right. --Panic 16:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[]
I've seen the user's post above, about acting without a user asking for the intervention, this should be avoided and only performed on extreme circumstances where there is a risk for the community as a whole, in the event described a permanent block of the account would work if the offending user wished he could then create another or initiate action on the block that would then be properly addressed. (Now that I think more about it, I really can't see any problem that would required the right to be used without a request, even posting the login information publicly on Wikibooks will not be that bad, the user can even provide the information outside of Wikibooks, users have the chance of anonymity this is an extension and by using another users account all actions performed will be credited to that account and dealt with, I can't remember the information that is displayed to users on registration) --Panic 16:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oversight permission is not needed at this time (if it was Whiteknight would be a fine choice for it). It is only really to be used in the very most extreme cases. I am yet to see a case on Wikibooks that would require it. If it is needed at any point, we have many stewards who could do it. --Cspurrier 00:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[]

Closed - abandoned - will archive in the next couple of days --Herby talk thyme 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)'[]

This article is issued from Wikibooks. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.