Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Tannersf

+Administrator

 * Oppose -- 260 edits, none in the wikibooks namespace, first edit less than a month ago. -- SB_Johnny | talk 11:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose To early. Small number of edits, no activity in project-wide discussions (VfD, Staff lounge, policies). --Derbeth talk 08:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I have to agree, it is just far too early, and this user is completely unknown outside his own pet projects. I don't want to claim that there is a "minimum contribution requirement" to become an admin, but generally we don't promote admins who only work on their own pet projects. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Request rejected. --Derbeth talk 14:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

+Administrator

 * Discussion:


 * From the top of the page: "... and who have demonstrated a specific need for the additional tools." This user has as of yet, not explained his need. --Swift 08:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Though unsure of the relevance of such a matter, I'm a little unnerved by some of Tannersf's habits. A while back I contacted him regarding my concerns over an over-ambitious project of his, but in my experience he has a bit of a history of abandoning unfinished the large number of books he starts.
 * I wouldn't mind seeing some examples of more research into WB policies than my first acquaintance of him illustrated. I don't mind this from fellow Wikibookians (policies are boring and tedious to navigate for restless souls), but I'd like to see a little commitment on this front by someone requesting admin tools.
 * Another quality that I miss is dedication to community by replying to posts on his talk page. According to his talk namespace edits, Tannersf has been less than diligent in this respect. In fact, most of those edits are the odd "Great Job" posts that SB Johnny contacted him over a while back which Tannersf posted on seemingly arbitrary (I got mine for a very minor contribution after which the module was a considerable way from being "a great module"). He abrubtly stopped after Johnny's comment, but without any recognition, explanation or comment.
 * I hate to be so gloomy and bring this up since Tannersf is evidently enthusiastic and hard working (this is probably my hardest "Save page" click yet). I am, however, afraid that his past actions are perhaps not indicative of desirable admin traits. --Swift 08:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Votes
 * Oppose - inexperienced user, has a tendency to remove content inappropriately. I would not be comfortable with this user having admin powers. Webaware 02:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - I like what I've seen and everything Tannersf has done has been for the good of Wikibooks. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 00:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- to soon and I'm consistent in my vote policy, and so object to give administrative rights to any user that hasn't been involved in wikibooks policy voting or active on the Staff lounge in the last 2/3 months, it's noting against Tannersf but this is a way to attest a user involvement with the community. --Panic 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am in general agreement with the statements of User:Swift, above. Simply meaning well, or being active don't necessarily indicate a need for additional permissions. I would like this user to demonstrate more of a clear understanding of our local policies and customs first. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Has a lot to learn about wiki editing in general as well as Wikibooks-specifics policies. I would feel very uncomfortable if this user had sysop tools due to past actions that show a lot of issues with this user's understanding of how things work here. -within focus 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed. No sense carrying this discussion any further, we don't need any hurt feelings about this matter. This user will not be made into a sysop, although many of the comments indicate that he could become a sysop in the future if he demonstrates a better understanding of the community. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support closure of this RfA, and encourage Tannsersf to keep doing what he's been doing. He's come a long way in a brief time, and I hope he'll stick around, because he does a lot of good work. -- SB_Johnny | talk 02:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)