This is more FYI if you havn't been frequenting Wikibooks for awhile
*** 10,000 Wikibooks modules for EN ***
The English Wikibooks has now passed over 10,000 book modules... which also puts it in the top 50 wikis on the web (according to [[w:List of largest wikis]]). Far from a failure, Wikibooks is starting to pick up some popularity and has a fairly healthy user population, including vandals and other malcontents. More publicity should happen about passing this key milestone, but for now this is about all the publicity that has happened so far. Which brings up the next item of news:
** Wikibooks has a new bureaucrat **
User:Aya has volunteered for and been granted bureaucrat status. What this means for Wikibooks is that more administrators are going to be created, with the latest being Geocachernemesis. You can debate if she will be good at this, but then again that should have been done on the Request for Admin Status page. The previous bureaucrats have been on haitus or away from Wikibooks on other projects, and it appears that Aya is more dedicated to just Wikibooks specifically. Wikibooks is growing, and the ever present need to police what is happening on Wikibooks is also growing. Thanks to all of the administrators who have been working hard in the past to help clean up things like the Ass Pus attacks and in general cleaning up everything on Wikibooks.
Robert Scott Horning a écrit:
This is more FYI if you havn't been frequenting Wikibooks for awhile
*** 10,000 Wikibooks modules for EN ***
The English Wikibooks has now passed over 10,000 book modules... which also puts it in the top 50 wikis on the web (according to [[w:List of largest wikis]]). Far from a failure, Wikibooks is starting to pick up some popularity and has a fairly healthy user population, including vandals and other malcontents. More publicity should happen about passing this key milestone, but for now this is about all the publicity that has happened so far. Which brings up the next item of news:
** Wikibooks has a new bureaucrat **
User:Aya has volunteered for and been granted bureaucrat status. What this means for Wikibooks is that more administrators are going to be created, with the latest being Geocachernemesis. You can debate if she will be good at this, but then again that should have been done on the Request for Admin Status page. The previous bureaucrats have been on haitus or away from Wikibooks on other projects, and it appears that Aya is more dedicated to just Wikibooks specifically. Wikibooks is growing, and the ever present need to police what is happening on Wikibooks is also growing. Thanks to all of the administrators who have been working hard in the past to help clean up things like the Ass Pus attacks and in general cleaning up everything on Wikibooks.
Aya just put a comment on request for permission on meta to be informed how he could remove sysop power as he did not find how to do it yet on wikibooks.
I read the above discussion... and must say I am a bit surprised you elected a bureaucrat who has obviously very little idea of what the various types of status can or can not do and very little idea how the request for permission system work.
But well...
In any cases, as a reminder, only stewards can desysop editors, bureaucrats can not, so Aya will not be able to do it.
Cheers
Anthere
Anthere wrote:
User:Aya has volunteered for and been granted bureaucrat status. What this means for Wikibooks is that more administrators are going to be created, with the latest being Geocachernemesis. You can debate if she will be good at this, but then again that should have been done on the Request for Admin Status page. The previous bureaucrats have been on haitus or away from Wikibooks on other projects, and it appears that Aya is more dedicated to just Wikibooks specifically. Wikibooks is growing, and the ever present need to police what is happening on Wikibooks is also growing. Thanks to all of the administrators who have been working hard in the past to help clean up things like the Ass Pus attacks and in general cleaning up everything on Wikibooks.
Aya just put a comment on request for permission on meta to be informed how he could remove sysop power as he did not find how to do it yet on wikibooks.
I read the above discussion... and must say I am a bit surprised you elected a bureaucrat who has obviously very little idea of what the various types of status can or can not do and very little idea how the request for permission system work.
But well...
In any cases, as a reminder, only stewards can desysop editors, bureaucrats can not, so Aya will not be able to do it.
Cheers
Anthere _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list
Aya has been put in mainly because there seems to be some neglect on the part of the previous bureaucrats to recognize the nomination of admins... and there seem to be a few new people who are capable of becoming an admin right now. The bar was set IMHO way too high, even to the point that it didn't appear any more users were going to be granted admin status. Mainly this is a way for the active users of Wikibooks to gain control and try to stop some of the vandalism that is going on... together with some of the internal edit wars that seem to portray an old guard vs. new blood attitude. I hope that heals and we can continue to promote Wikibooks.
As for removing admin status from problem admins, I guess this is going to fall on the shoulders of stewards overall, and may require some minor monitoring of complaints. If it becomes too blatant and out of control (I'm being banned due to internal politics and not because of vandalism and policy violations) I'll scream on Foundation-l. I don't think that will ever happen, however. There are a number of admins that seem to be very inactive, and I guess policy issues regarding what to do with inactive admins may take place.
Wikibooks is taking off into its own directions, with some people who are specializing in primarily Wikibooks, and not necessarily Wikipedia. Too bad most of them are not subscribers to this list, however.
** Wikibooks has a new bureaucrat **
User:Aya has volunteered for and been granted bureaucrat status. What this means for Wikibooks is that more administrators are going to be created, with the latest being Geocachernemesis. You can debate if she will be good at this, but then again that should have been done on the Request for Admin Status page. The previous bureaucrats have been on haitus or away from Wikibooks on other projects, and it appears that Aya is more dedicated to just Wikibooks specifically. Wikibooks is growing, and the ever present need to police what is happening on Wikibooks is also growing. Thanks to all of the administrators who have been working hard in the past to help clean up things like the Ass Pus attacks and in general cleaning up everything on Wikibooks.
Although I strongly believe that you shouldn't nominate yourself for bureaucratship, rather have someone else nominate you for the post, it's a welcome move nonetheless. [[User:Aya]] should be more effective in implementing widespread sweeping changes to policy as well.
On 7/31/05, kelvSYC kelvsyc@shaw.ca wrote:
Although I strongly believe that you shouldn't nominate yourself for bureaucratship, rather have someone else nominate you for the post, it's a welcome move nonetheless. [[User:Aya]] should be more effective in implementing widespread sweeping changes to policy as well.
Bureaucrats should have no more control over policy than any other user. Bureaucratship is just a technical access level that allows a user to make other admins. It should not be seen as a position of authority, and should not be used to justify "sweeping changes to policy" without the normal requirements of community consensus on those policies.
Angela.
Angela wrote:
On 7/31/05, kelvSYC kelvsyc@shaw.ca wrote:
Although I strongly believe that you shouldn't nominate yourself for bureaucratship, rather have someone else nominate you for the post, it's a welcome move nonetheless. [[User:Aya]] should be more effective in implementing widespread sweeping changes to policy as well.
Bureaucrats should have no more control over policy than any other user. Bureaucratship is just a technical access level that allows a user to make other admins. It should not be seen as a position of authority, and should not be used to justify "sweeping changes to policy" without the normal requirements of community consensus on those policies.
Angela.
I'm going to defend Aya on this one, however. There is an excellent policy discussion page that has been put off Aya's user page, and there has been quite a bit of discussion about it (or at least parts of it) in the Staff Lounge. This isn't a dictitorial change but rather an implementation of user concensus. The #1 issue that was resolved with Aya becoming a bureaucrat was simply an effort to get more admins made. That capability is now present, but unfortunately it was more social than technical in terms of getting it implemented. As far as changing policies, it is also an effort to protect and unprotect (or at least edit from an admin capacity) the actual policy pages of Wikibooks. These are the "sweeping policy changes" that are most likely going to be made, and certainly the changes will be made as a community decision... as it should be. Aya wants to get involved at that level, and I say the job should be turned over for that area of Wikibooks. It is also easy to monitor if it gets out of hand in a real hurry.
In retrospect it would have been nice to have Aya be an admin for awhile. I was going to nominate Aya myself for adminship, but I was also watching the fight over Geocachernemesis and try to see just was going to happen to turn him into an admin before I put up the name for Aya. As far as how quickly things normally take to get resolved on Wikibooks, the nomination and actual implementation of Aya to become a bureaucrat was lightning fast... in some ways too fast for Wikibooks. Still, that was a fairly large general community support for bureaucratship by regulars who monitor that page.... particularly since it happened over the course of just a few days. It wasn't as if Aya demanded and got bureaucratship without any community support.
Time scale is precisely why there is a "Book of the Month" rather than the "Book of the Week" on Wikibooks. It just seems to take longer for everybody to get their voices heard, and longer for a user to find their way outside of a pet "project book" and to get involved in the community in general. Staff Lounge discussions last a couple of months as well before they are archived. That may change, but for now is the case.
On 8/1/05, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
As far as changing policies, it is also an effort to protect and unprotect (or at least edit from an admin capacity) the actual policy pages of Wikibooks.
Why do the policy pages need to be protected?
Angela
As far as changing policies, it is also an effort to protect and unprotect (or at least edit from an admin capacity) the actual policy pages of Wikibooks.
Why do the policy pages need to be protected?
Wikibooks policy pages (as well as Wikiversity pages) was repeatedly victims to page move vandal attacks.
kelvSYC wrote:
As far as changing policies, it is also an effort to protect and unprotect (or at least edit from an admin capacity) the actual policy pages of Wikibooks.
Why do the policy pages need to be protected?
Wikibooks policy pages (as well as Wikiversity pages) was repeatedly victims to page move vandal attacks.
Still are, BTW. They keep getting creative. The best one I recently saw was the list of vandalized pages being moved and renamed. They seem to be daily attacks by the same person/people right now.
textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org