Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Mfinney

+Administrator
In the time I have been involved with Wikibooks (primarily through the Wikiversity project), and have been very active in participation. As the school I developed (Wikiversity:School of Fire and Emergency Management) continues to grow, it would be helpful if I were able to access more rights to help the newcomers I am recruiting. I hope you will consider so that I can be a greater asset to the school and to Wikimedia as a whole. Thank you for your consideration.

Discussion

Can you explain how sysop tools will be useful for you? --Derbeth talk 15:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I have seen so far, I know such things as orphaned pages and so forth,(where an individual has made a mistake and so forth) could be fixed a lot faster. As individuals are first using the site, they tend to make a lot of mistakes (I can speak personally for this.) While we intend for people to use the Sandbox, that does not always occur. With my background, I could pick up on issues related to content fairly quickly. As well, I work with the site on a regular basis now, so I could be a good resource in this area.My commitment to wanting to see the Wikiversity and Wikibooks be a clean site that is useful to people and a commitment to working long term on these projects could be an asset.--Mfinney 16:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But you are only editing pages connected to your books. Orphaned pages are no problem - you just insert &#123;{delete}} and the page is deleted. --Derbeth talk 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Votes


 * Oppose - I looked over your edits and only saw content page edits. You have been here for two months or so and have a large number of edits, but those edits are 99.99% on your own book projects. Administrators have responsibilities to help with managing the entire site, not just personal projects. I think you can easily manage with normal abilities. Your large amount of edits (and about 4.2 per page) show that you're only interested in working on your own projects. -Matt 23:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the opportunity, I would rise to the task. I really have benefited from the Wikibooks project and feel its my responsibility to take a bigger commitment. I would like to put back into the Wikibooks project, since I have recieved. I would consider it a privilege to work on the entire site.--Mfinney 01:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I too still oppose this adminship. Derbeth covered most of it, but a lot more time needs to be spent in other areas besides a single book. I don't see a need for this user having the rights now. If he did more than just work on a book, then I would reconsider. As of now, no significant effort has been made. -Matt 23:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Sysop rights are neither a privilege nor an honour. It purely maintenance function, given people doing cleanup work - not people who do most of work or the best work. Looking at your contributions, I see you are a good book author (even though you have some problems with naming policy), but not an active vandalism spotter. --Derbeth talk 02:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about changing my vote, but when browsed through Mfinney's edits, I can't find a good reason for that. Yes, he is a very good contributor, but only for his book. I would support user who is active on several books or a group of books (like Wikiversity), but Mfinney is concentrated strictly on his book. When it comes to helping newcomers - anyone can do it, you don't need special privileges. I also think that Mfinney is able to manage his book with his current permissions. We certainly need users like Mfinney but I'm not convinced we should give sysop right to everyone who just wrote a good book and wants to have greater control over it. --Derbeth talk 21:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would like to support this request for adminship, but I do not know what to expect from this user. To Mfinney: start working on some pan-Wikibooks tasks, such as participating in Category:Wikibooks maintenance or Votes for deletion. You do not need adminship to start. Please do help with these tasks! --Kernigh 06:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks Kernigh! Actually all I want to do is help out more. So I will do that. I keep seeing on the different talk pages that we need more sysops to help out. My thoughts were... I'm utilizing the servers and software... I should do my part in maintenance as well. I will take your advice. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. --Mfinney 15:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I decided to change my vote. I prefer to support users who occasionally revert vandalism or mark pages for deletion, which is why I initially opposed. However, User:Mfinney is a very active user, thus I want to let this user view deleted pages and delete redirects, like I recently did for the RuneScape book. Also, other users who voted after me gave good reasons to support this user. --Kernigh 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support An active user, would be nice if xhe could preforom more "maintenance" edits --Cspurrier 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. As a user with a good edit history, you have displayed your trustworthyness to the community. I don't think that an admin needs to be a vandal-fighting superman, but you definately should try to become more familiar with policy such as the votes for deletion/undeletion pages, the clean up, and maybe even familiarize yourself with the vandalism in progress page. You are trustworthy, you are a frequent editor, and you have a sincere desire to help out. I can't think of any other qualifications you would need. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 21:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You say this person should become more familiar with policy, but I see it as simply looking at policy. This user has never made an edit outside of his own book projects. I don't understand how this user has trust when all he has done is edit book pages. The user even said himself that he wants admin abilities to help with editing book pages, which sounds to me like he's still only interested in staying with only his projects. I'm not saying that he is hopeless, not at all, but he could definitely go somewhere with all these tips and come back later. I think his current progress is grounds for a strong oppose. -Matt 22:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What are the qualifications for being an admin, exactly? this user expresses a strong desire to contribute to the wikibooks project (even if he has a narrow scope), he has a good edit history, and so long as he does not abuse admin powers while sheparding his pet projects, I can see no reason to deny him adminship. Also, with the new infrastructure in place to "de-op" inactive sysadmins, I think it is prudent on our part to give eager members with a sincere desire to help an opportunity to do so. You want to strongly oppose this nomination simply because he doesnt go to the VFD discussions? I think that's short sighted on your part. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 14:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many qualities I think an admin should have. In the case of this user, I think an admin should be versatile. This user is very dedicated to only one thing: his projects. His level of dedication is great, but I don't think he needs sysop tools to continue what he's doing. When did I mention VfD discussions? I think you may have shortsighted me, because what I was referring to is any sort of discussion with the Wikibooks community. How do we know this user understands deletion policy, what vandals are capable of, how pages should be named, etc? I don't think I'd be able to trust his administrative actions as of now because I believe there's a chance he may use them improperly. It basically comes down to experience and practice in areas outside of a single or few book projects. -Matt 00:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've said it before, and I'll say it 100 times more: I would rather have more contributers and administrators willing to make a big difference on a single wikibook, then have thousands of contributers and administrators who only clean up vandalism. If we don't have people writing new books, taking on new pet projects, and moving certain wikibooks to the forefront, then we as a community have nothing. If this user has a sincere desire to help out the project by utilizing his knowledge and writing abilities to benefit only a single book or bookshelf, then more power to him. He might not know all the facets and nuances of wikibooks policy, but if he has a pet project that he cares about strongly, and is willing to put significant time and effort into, then i can't imagine that he would use administrative powers improperly to the point that they damage that project. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 22:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support While this user may not be agreesive in the discussion forums with Wikibooks, he has been incredibly active within Wikiversity. If/when Wikiversity becomes an independent project, I hope that he becomes one of the first admins there as a definite help to that project.  Also, we are trying to deterime trustworthyness to keep the mission of Wikibooks, not to raise the bar so high to become a new administrator that you have to be a hard-core veteran Wikibooks user.  Of course, other users are welcome to their own opinion on what standards they think there should be to become an admin.  --Rob Horning 16:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per Whiteknight and Rob Horning, Jguk 10:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Active in Wikiversity. I'm surprised he isn't an admin already. --Dragontamer 17:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Plus it should be no big deal, and Mfinney seems like a decent enough editor. -- LV (Dark Mark) 03:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Archived by jguk on 2 June 2006 after no movement in this nomination since 17 April.