Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Dragontamer

+Administrator
Well, I had a speech with pros and cons typed up, and then IE messed up on me. So I'll keep it short. If you guys don't know me, then I probably shouldn't be an Admin anyway. Wikibooks is small enough for all admins to know each other right now.

I may be sticking to game guides right now, but I am willing to help out with vandals and so forth. I go through recent changes at least once in my "wikibooks routine", and use random module every now and then to check up on pages. Sysop rights would cut down my time a lot, especially with all these vandals in my video-game book/guide.

As far as why I'd like to be an admin... I like the one-click reverts that I can get (in combination with that IRC channel with the stuff in RC, it'd be nice). Banning seems a little too powerful to me :) But I'm sure I'd understand when to ban after a while.

Thanks for hearing me out. --Dragontamer 06:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * IMO, if I can't convince 100% of you guys, I'm not to be trusted as an admin yet anyway. Like said before, this place is small enough right now that 1/2 people on a vote counts for a lot. So I'll withdraw my request, and I'll see if I can do anything in the next few months to change your opinion. Ick, it was in the lost post that was lost that had my worries about being premature :-/ (*kills IE*) --Dragontamer 02:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Votes (no more votes, user withdrew request)
 * Support - This wiki needs more admins to revert things. For example, look at the history of the Project:Community Portal... hidden WikiSpam stays at that page for hours. I wonder if Dragontamer has any experience being admin/sysop at another MediaWiki. (I have no such experience.) Experienced or not, you can start by using the quick-revert feature, and not worry about banning anyone until later. --Kernigh 04:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, if I become a sysop here, this will be my first time as a sysop at any MediaWiki. --Dragontamer 14:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - You mention that you mostly work on game guides and after looking at your contribs that's basically all I see. I really don't see work anywhere else. I'm opposing this because as of now I think there's work to be had. Actually go around and make a significant effort with RC or something similar. You say you want to do it, so do it. Yes, it saves time to have admin rights but by what you've done now I don't see much of a time savings anyway. I don't really see any action and until I see more I oppose. -Matt 17:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - While he is very active in the game guides (and trying to help develop the gaming guide policies), I have seen his contributions elsewhere on Wikibooks as well. My only concern is a worry he may "burn out" from trying to do too much too soon, but this is certainly a user that can be trusted to make Wikibooks a better place, and has made meaningful contributions already that in general support the whole project.  --Rob Horning 03:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Cspurrier 23:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think your request came too early. In fact, you haven't done much reverts and most of them are done in your own book. We don't need another admin who cares only about a single book. Even as an ordinary user you can still fight vandalism using "three-click-revert". Compare yourself to Lord Voldemort - don't you think you are not active enough to convince us you will be a good sysop? --Derbeth talk 01:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it would be a bad precedent to set to compare nominees to other nominees? I would encourage all contributors here to base their judgment on the specific editor's contributions. I am not making any value judgment on Dragontamer, I'm just saying that comparing nominees can sometimes be like comparing apples and unicorns. -- LV (Dark Mark) 15:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No consensus to give sysop rights. --Derbeth talk 18:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

+Administrator
I'm nominating Dragontamer for adminship in part because of some outstanding contributions to Wikibooks, and what I feel is a need to get more of a contributor's viewpoint into administrative decisions. In going over his contribution history, he certainly has been active all over Wikibooks and adding considerable content, as well as helping out with many of the decisions that we have been making here resulting from the many policy votes that have been taking place lately.

Some concern about this user was raised regarding the fact that he seemed to lack experience as a contributor to effectively understand general Wikibooks policies, and that perhaps may have been a valid concern. He certainly understands those policies now, and can be considered as trusted of a user to help with making content decisions as anybody else here. Indeed, this is a user that has asked for the ability to help out on Wikibooks as an administrator, and this is a task that certainly needs as many eyes as possible. Having more eyes on what is going on in terms of content deletion is a healthy thing, and we need more people from many different viewpoint.

His first edit was last August, although he really didn't become active on Wikibooks until November, so perhaps some caution was in line for his first request for adminiship. His subsequent edit history speaks for itself, and he has certainly been voicing his opinion on general topics about Wikibooks and Wikiversity as well.

Wikibooks needs users that are dedicated to helping this project succeed, and we can always use more admins here as this project is growing. Please support me in this nomination and help Dragontamer become our newest administrator. --Rob Horning 11:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I accept my nomination. Thank you Robert for Nominating me :) --Dragontamer 20:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

What would you use the admin tools for, and how would you use them? I find your case a somewhat difficult one due to a few of your past comments. Putting disagreements over issues we've discussed together aside, I feel like there's a bit of haste and immaturity in some of the things you say. I have no intentions to personally attack you, but sometimes I found your reasoning somewhat peculiar. If you could state where you'll actually be using admin tools I might be more confident in giving a support vote, but if you plan on doing a lot of sensitive things with the tools (such as deletions of possible policy violations, decisions of whether concensus is achieved or not, etc.) I have some worry. Sorry if anyone feels this is too direct a question and I'll understand if it's removed, but I'd like to know the answer. -Matt 04:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a discussion about me. By that definition, any comment against me is not "insulting", but instead "on-topic". So really, throw anything at me, as far as this topic goes, all questions are fair :). As an admin, I'd use the "one-click-revert" tool more often, it certainly will help out everyone. Bannings will not be used liberally, but there are obvious cases where it should be used. In this area, there aren't enough admins on all the time, it may sometimes take a few hours for even a responce in WB:VIP. When things come down to a vote however (Such as WB:VFD, I take on the concensus. I do not believe in a democracy (yet). Wikibooks is not big enough for a democracy to be efficient. Instead, I'll wait for a general feeling of "yes" vs "no" in the topic of discussion. I won't count votes, I won't use thresholds of "delete at 70%", no... I don't believe in those things. Maybe if wikibooks grows to the size of Wikipedia, but not now, most definitly.


 * As for other admin's actions; I trust every other admin right now. I will not "undo" an action of another admin (such as undeleting material). I'll talk it over to that particular admin if I feel it isn't right, but we are all smart people here, there is more than likely a reason that I cannot see. The admins here are reasonable, and I feel that if I can't convince an Admin to undo an action himself/herself, then my argument is the one at fault. --Dragontamer 20:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Votes
 * Support --Kernigh 05:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I thought about this one and I don't think now is an appropriate time for adminship. I see immaturity in Dragontamer's comments around Wikibooks and am not comfortable if he were able to delete pages, block users, or many of the other more permanent admin decisions. I still don't think he's in full understanding of some policies here. Reverting vandalism is great but I don't see him doing that much of it and the manual method can easily suffice. -Matt 02:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've decided to change to support. The more I think about it, the less important I see some of my previous worries. He's staying active and as long as he doesn't go crazy with the tools I don't see it as a problem. If he wants to one-click-revert, then sure. I don't see this current discussion mentioning anything insensible and I hope he'll stay with it. -Matt 16:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that becomming an adminstrator is not supposed to be that big of a deal (invoking Jimbo says here). Do you think this user is going to vandalism the main page, and do things that are substantially different from the current status quo on Wikibooks?  Or go blocking other users including administrators that are unwarrented?  Or delete pages that should remain?  I hardly see how anybody could do more damage to Wikibook than what is currently happening right now with the huge flux of new policies and structural overhaul that is going on right now within this project, and with the total number of pages at Wikibooks dropping daily.  There is enough cruft that there is plenty of work for everbody to be involved, and I doubt that he is going to do something like delete Cookbook or something else that is similarly establshed here on Wikibooks.  --Rob Horning 15:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're assuming that I think his actions will be extreme. That is not the case. I am not worried that he will vandalize pages and delete popular content; I am worried that he will look at the speedy deletion category and delete pages listed there inappropriately. I am not worried that he will block administrators; I am worried he will block those listed on WB:VIP without regard. I am not worried that he will not follow policies like WB:NPA; I am worried that he will archive things like VFDs that haven't made substantial conclusions. It's just a maturity issue. I think some comments and decisions have been made with haste. With what he's doing now, admin tools aren't giving him much anyway. Users like User:Jguk and User:Kernigh were limited by not having the tools. This user makes a casual revision sometimes. Since I see his discussions as worrisome and his actions as unhindered, I don't see a reason to have sysop. I think there's a fundamental disagreement between us there since you like having many admins to perform less actions per admin and the mass makes up for it whereas I think there should be a smaller number that work with more dedication. I prefer the latter since those that work as admins really are making a difference and are motivated to make that difference. If someone wants to make a revert like myself, they can do it. Tools aren't necessary. -Matt 19:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't voted (and am unlikely to do so) because I am not familiar enough with Dragontamer to have much of an opinion (and am unlikely to to find the time to review his contributions). But some of your (Matt's) comments has made me curious.  You cite immaturity, say that some ocmments and decisions have been made in haste, and say that some of his discusions are worrisome.  Can you, without unreasonable difficulty, cite some diffs that show this?  Note.  Having to comb through Dragontamer's contribution log for things you now only vaguely remember off the top of your head counts, at least as far as my interest is concerned, unreasonable difficulty and so as inability to cite the diffs.  Others more likely than me to vote may have a different definition of "unreasonable difficulty".  At any rate, I am not challenging you on this, I'm just curious.  --JMRyan T E C 12:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a difficult thing to show indeed. However, I found a couple instances. Just below here in the de-adminship for Cyp, he leaves an which I find inappropriate since it's a very sensitive matter. Also, there is  which I see as unnecessary and a bad idea. What's there needs to be there. It's a combination of many small things that just seem unnecessary to do or say sometimes. It's a level of professionalism with administrative matters. -Matt 18:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I see the controversy with #2, and I understand your point with #1. Although yes, it was a sensitive matter; I felt that those comments I deleted were unnecessary a to the topic at hand, and hurting the sprit of Wikibooks. But I am glad that you pointed these out. Although I understand my action with #2 was aggressive, I still stand by my actions as per the suggestion in WB:NPA.
 * "You might also consider removing particularly clear-cut personal attacks"
 * As far as your other concerns, Blocking and deleting in my eye are the most severe actions possible on this site. Unfortunatly, there are very clear cut cases where a user must be blocked to stop their vandalism. I think that a block of even just 1 hour can do the trick for most vandals. As for deleting pages, if anything is iffy, thats why WB:VFD is there for. I also don't think pages should be deleted if they are new; instead, I'd talk it over with the main author and why I feel it is against policy. As for disobeying policy and archiving discussions, those can be done by anyone, so I don't think that is an issue here. --Dragontamer 04:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support --German Men92 23:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Active, helpful, friendly. Admin Material. --Whiteknight (talk)(projects) 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * With our current debate going on, I am pleasantly surprised at your vote :-) --Dragontamer 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't vote for people just because they think like me or act like me. This "debate" has given me an opportunity to see how you perform in matters of policy, and i've taken enough interest to go over your contribution history. Everything looks good to me. --Whiteknight (talk)(projects)


 * Support -- John N. 10:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * SupportDolive35 10:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dragontamer has now been given sysop rights

-Administrator

 * Last edit was 19:26, March 15, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikibooks:Requests for permissions‎ (→)
 * Last sysop action was 17:59, December 22, 2006 Dragontamer (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Vanilladome.gif" ‎ (Super Mario World was also deleted a while ago...) (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  &#124; talk 00:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)