Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Aya

+Bureaucrat
See: Requests_for_permissions for the origins of this request.

To sum up, there are many great candidates for adminship, who have been sitting in this RFA page for too long, some of whom have pulled out as a consequence, which is a great shame. As I also mentioned in my Critique of Wikibooks, these need to get processed more quickly, due to the ephemeral nature of wiki communities, or we'll soon be left with a wiki with no-one to clean up all the mess that vandals and the like leave behind. As Jimbo himself is alleged to have said, becoming an administrator should be "no big deal", so I feel we should be more trusting, and admin people sooner (unless there are any obvious reasons to the contrary, but a quick scan of a user's edit history should suffice). Admin permissions can always be taken away if people abuse their powers. At the end of the day, if you can't trust your fellow wiki-editors, then what's the point of even being here?

See: m:User:Aya for personal information about myself.

See: User talk:Aya (or click the 'T' in my sig) if you wish to talk to me directly.

See: Special:Contributions/Aya (or click the 'C' in my sig) for my edits on this wiki (approx 1200 in the last six weeks).

Thankyou for your time. - Aya T C 19:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Support -- What ever can help the process of getting more admins the better. :-) MShonle 20:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Support -- Aya seems to have the best interests of Wikibooks in mind. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 00:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Support -- Aya is one of the most influential of Wikibookians and has contributed greatly to the project with enthusiasm and intelligence. Go for it :) Serge 10:04, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, clearing backlogs is always an important task. Backlogs of deletions is bad enough, but of future admins?! Gah. At least the page admits it, "Be patient, because this could take months.". We should remove that line when your job is official, as it (and the current backlog) no doubt put many off if they consider applying. GarrettTalk 11:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Support -- Aya has been a very considerate of particularly the new Wikibookians on here, has done an outstanding job of helping out at the Staff Lounge, and in general has kept a level head when the rest of us are a little hot under the collar. Ditto to everything above. --Rob Horning 04:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to all supporters. This has now been done (just in time to block the latest ass pus attack). I've just discovered that, although I can make a sysop very easily, I don't seem to be able to remove one. This may cause a problem with my previous suggestion of sysop'ing people more quickly, since I can't remove them if they misbehave. I've made the appropriate noises on Requests_for_permissions to get a response on this. I shall refrain from archiving this section until this is resolved. - Aya T C 00:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that before asking for a status, it would be interesting to get informed on what you can precisely do with that status :) As a bureaucrat, you appear to me very little informed. - Anthere 07:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * To be fair, the first thing I did upon getting the flag, was to find a page with information about what I should and shouldn't do. I tried looking through m:Help:Contents, but couldn't find anything obvious. A pointer to the appropriate page would be appreciated. - Aya T C 19:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So, here are three informations


 * when a status needs to be given or removed that a bureaucrat can not (or when the bureaucrat is not around), the right place to go is Requests for permissions.
 * in any cases, the decision must be made HERE, and not on meta. So, for example, for any removal of sysop status, it must first be voted here by the whole community, then requested on meta. It should not be Aya lone decision to do so, but your collective decision
 * a bureaucrat can not remove a status, only a steward can. So any removal of sysop status will only be done after 1) agreement of the community here and 2) request on meta, to a steward. No noise will change that. So best to name trusted people sysops.


 * Cheers


 * Anthere 07:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I guess what I originially figured was that with such vague policy about when to sysop people as we have right now, that if I choose to sysop someone, I am implicitly taking on the responsibility for their actions, and thus should de-sysop them if they misbehave. It now seems this was not the intented use. I was also unaware that a bureaucrat can create other bureaucrats. I shall make an effort to re-write this page to make it clearer as to how this all works. Pah. I knew I should've read the source code first, but I often find PHP source difficult to read, since it's generally embedded in a whole bunch of HTML, and I'm certain bureucrats are not required to read the source code.


 * Anyways. I consider the matter closed, so I shall archive this section one week from today. - Aya T C 19:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. You are not responsible, because you do not make the decision to sysop people yourself. The community makes this decision and you are only a tool applying the decision of the community. So, the community is globally responsible of a bad decision in sysoping someone, and the community must decide collectively to revert such a decision. Wish you good luck. Anthere

-Administrator
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. -within focus 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. -within focus 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The below users have had their rights removed. This will be archived shortly. -within focus 16:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Last non-outlying edit 31 October 2005.