Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:User rights nominations/Archives/2013

< Wikivoyage:User rights nominations | Archives
← 2012 User rights nominations archives for 2013 (current) 2014 →
Archives by year
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think it might be useful to have local checkusers in the upcoming week for the launch, in part out of concern that a few known parties hostile to our project launch might harass new contributors and generally be disruptive, using multiple accounts and ips to circumvent blocks already in place. Using local checkusers rather than filing requests on Meta for individual cases will be a lot more efficient, and allows us to keep from fanning flames across wikis ;)

I'm nominating myself and Ian for the role, as we need two per Meta:CheckUser policy#Access to CheckUser, and so that we can keep an eye on each other! I am familiar with the Meta:Privacy policy and will respect it to the letter, using this tool only to investigate significant disruption, and never using it to reveal private information about users per policy: don't reveal a user's "IP, whereabouts, or other information sufficient to identify them, unless they have already revealed this information themselves on the project." I'll let Inas affirm the same in a statement accepting the nomination.

I affirm the same. I am familiar with the appropriate policies and will adhere to them. --Inas (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of us have been admins with the project for about 5 years, I'm also a bureaucrat, yada, yada. Checkuser investigations will hopefully be rare here, since we don't block people for using multiple accounts unless they are being used to circumvent blocks.

We'll need at least 25 statements of support to satisfy the requirements for local checkuser privileges, so let's see if we have that many people working here! --Peter Talk 07:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Note that it could be only zero or two checkusers. One checkuser on a wiki is impossible.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, which is why I initially had only one nomination--for the two of us. I've restored that version. --Peter Talk 09:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading something slightly different at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser
There must be at least two users with CheckUser status - not a maximum of two!
So I still think that it is less than best practice to have a "joint ticket". In the unlikely event that both of you don't individually get the 25 supports, then it should be technically possible to propose additional candidate(s)... -- Alice✉ 10:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I might consider nominating myself as checkuser on sv:, but there is no rush. Let's sort it out here first. Riggwelter (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meta considers all projects individually, so that elected checkusers on en.wv will not have any access to sv.wv.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I meant it can not be one (meaning that if accidentally one is not elected, additional elections are needed).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that it is appropriate for the voting to take place jointly for two candidates. Rather, there should be two nominations. Snowolf How can I help? 12:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that perhaps. I am not sure that I it is fair and acceptable method that two candidate be voted on thru the same procedure. Rather, each of them should be voted on separately, regardless of the fact that there need to be two elected checkusers for the permissions to be granted. The user right is held by one user and is not joint, so should the voting be. Snowolf How can I help? 12:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone really has a problem with this, they can specify whom they support when recording their opinion. I predict no one will. LtPowers (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Alice and Snowolf, Nominations should be for one person, The checkuser rules require two checkusers as a non-zero minimum, so at least two nominations are necessary. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having more than two is possible & may be a good idea to give better coverage, so I'll nominate more, both people who have been around for some time and were admins on the other site. Pashley (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like 2 is sufficient for the size of our site at present, but either of these below could be backup noms in case one of the above fails? – cacahuate talk 17:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pashley, how can you vote for all four candidates at once? --Saqib (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement was to sucker at least two candidates into becoming checkuser. I don't think we're limited to exactly two if there are more who would be suitable. K7L (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, it's my understanding that the WMF wants to limit checkuser access as much as possible, so I don't know if more nominations make sense right now, given that we're not Wikipedia-sized and probably won't need the tool all that much. The folks nominated below are certainly qualified, though (although LtPowers has stated that he's not interested). --Peter Talk 19:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although the foundation has the ultimate jurisdiction, it appears that local communities are usually given the responsibility of limiting access, especially those with an arbitration committee.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most often, if a user is vandalising or disrupting a wiki, there's no point in running checkuser as whatever they're doing will either get or not get a ban/block on its own (de)merits. The tool therefore gets used rarely. Sockpuppet investigations are needed if socks are used to manipulate voting processes, but is that common here? K7L (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, spambots have to be CU'ed so that global blocks can be applied, same goes for a number of crosswiki LTAs. Snowolf How can I help? 20:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not something you should be nominating people for without asking first, given the stringent requirements laid out by the WMF. Please rescind the nominations. LtPowers (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, LtPowers has the right to reject his nomination even in view of community support.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for the nomination to be rescinded, you can merely reject yours, and the other user has already rejected his, I believe. Snowolf How can I help? 20:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment honestly I'd start voting for setting up checkusers if they are really needed. Having local checkusers means all the checks must be made by them (while not in case of emergency ofc), so en.voy will lose the benefits from having them carried out by stewards (who currently are ~40) without taking any apparent advantage. For these reasons I suggest waiting for approval of related policies (e.g. one about sockpuppets') and for emerging of a true need for local CUs, which currently lacks (I didn't see any request for en.voy here). --Vituzzu (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reasons for having local checkusers are very particular to this launch. For reasons more clear to the people who have been most involved in the process, I think it will be best to avoid posting a lot of requests on Meta. If anyone would like a bit more background, please send me an email and I'll explain in further detail. I'm honestly not sure we'll need to have local checkusers after a few weeks have gone by. --Peter Talk 19:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to send me an email at the address you can find here: I'm deeply interested since I'm completely missing your point. To me the common path is a need arises → a solution is applied and if you think it won't be necessary in the future then it definitely fits the definition on what is supposed to be carried out by stewies! --Vituzzu (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me it seems that you might not know what you are getting into - having local checkusers means that stewards can no longer do checkusers on the English Wikivoyage in most cases. Neither of you are on IRC, which means that it will be difficult for stewards to contact you when they need checkusers run. Also, from what I've heard, the CheckUser tool has a bit of a learning curve. (I would suggest to both of the checkuser candidates that you join IRC - especially the #wikivoyage and #wikimedia-stewards channels - to stay aware of what's going on in regards to cross-wiki issues, and be able to help the users that are in the wikivoyage channel as none of the WV regulars come in there, and the rest of us don't know anything about the site.) You will also need to be subscribed to checkuser-l, and you will have an account on the CheckUser wiki, should the stewards grant the permissions. --Rschen7754 00:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm contactable pretty much immediately on the wikivoyage-l, and I'm active there, as well as by email through the wiki. I don't believe the requirement for global stewards to require checkuser on wikivoyage will drive a requirement to be on IRC. --Inas (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's not required, being on IRC is optimal because discussions can occur real-time; email is quite slower.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser information cannot be given out onwiki, or on wikivoyage-l, or with anyone that is not a CU on another project or a steward. IRC is helpful because you can flag someone down and then have a private conversation with them. I've found that this works best for the English Wikipedia and for the stewards on Meta. --Rschen7754 01:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I do believe that it is quite unlikely that this timeliness is going to be required on WV. If for some reason I need to discuss a point urgently and interactively, then, sure, access to IRC is no issue. Obviously, the CU information wouldn't be placed on a public list or onwiki, that's part of the deal. --Inas (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I have reservations about the approach with regard to the timeline and expected outcome, which should be separated from the right to have CU, or the need. CheckUser tool is not a magic bullet, it takes time to learn and to finesse results. One requires a good knowledge of IP addresses and ranges to be able to use it well, with one of the key instructions for any new CU is to be patient, use it wisely, take your time. This is not learnt in a few days, especially where this community's leaders will presumably have other duties.

    What I read in the email to wikivoyage-l somewhat disturbs me …

    "We have some concern that some parties hostile to Wikivoyage (which are already blocked) will spend the week of our launch (January 15!) trolling, disrupting, and trying to drive off new contributors. Having local checkusers would make it easy to see if multiple ips or accounts are being used to circumvent blocks already in place."

    At this point of time, you fall under the default meta:Checkuser policy especially with regard to sock puppets, and I do not feel that you have the scope to undertake CU and action against a SUL with regard to Use of tool in the policy. Sock puppet accounts are allowed, even under your proposal. Prior to enforcing you should be educating all your users to the policy (which is still in draft) and giving them time to understand the consequences.

    I would say block accounts for their behaviour, and utilise the IP component of a block to manage collateral damage. The stewards will certainly make themselves available if you have concerns about troublemakers, and we have even bigger and better tools to manage such troublemakers.

    Progress to your having your CU, that is fine that is why we have the process available but don't have it as your focus. Get the house in order first (policies and education), and add the frills later. Stewards are available, they have much experience with the tool, and have already used it locally. Re IRC it is just a tool that is available, and some can use it, some will not. It is a good way to get a steward's attention, but just one way. Billinghurst (talk) (with my steward and separate enWS checkuser hats on) 03:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.. I don't think we're necessarily on the lookout for "bigger and better tools", although the offers of assistance are appreciated. I certainly hope we won't be needing any. Yes, we have a focus on a launch date right now. We are right to try and harness the momentum and publicity that arises from it, and we have a responsibility to manage the transition smoothly. If the CU process completes, fine. If not, we'll manage the issues as they arise. I don't think we want to go further than we need to with policies, right now. That's another of the risks we face in this phase. --Inas (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we could bring a number of stewards into this process and have them carry the load during the launch instead of our local admins, honestly, that would be wonderful. It would help to maintain a good deal of contact off-wiki for coordination outside the closed CU lists, though, with local admins more familiar with the various goings on here—with a careful mind to following the privacy policy. Because, yes, we will have a ton of work to do, from which learning the CU tools will be a distraction. If that's something we feel we can achieve, I'll withdraw my self nomination. --Peter Talk 07:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no specific concerns over the (renewed) nomination process and if that is your community's wish so be it. This was about managing expectations and what I perceive as the limitations on what you can do with the data at this nascent stage of policy development. [To note to the community that I have now had direct email contact with PF and Inas about this matter, and will quietly withdraw from further commentary.] Billinghurst (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per those emails, I feel that our stewards are now aware of the issues we may face during and after the launch, and will probably do a better job of handling the CU needs we will have in the short term. I'd like to table my nomination to allow stewards to do their work, with the recognition that it may make sense to have local checkusers at some time in the future. --Peter Talk 18:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it depends on what your needs are in a few months, but OS is less complicated (it's basically an extra checkbox when doing revision deletion). --Rschen7754 03:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Identification

I see something missing here: are the both of you willing to identify to the foundation? That is a WMF requirement for getting checkuser access. --Rschen7754 20:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Checkuser nominations, at least Peter does.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you should affirm that you are willing to in the nomination statement, so that this is more likely to be accepted. (Or you could even identify right now, just in case...) --Rschen7754 20:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I did this, by affirming I would comply with the policies as documented. But, for elimination of any doubt, I confirm I am willing to identify to the foundation. --Inas (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, and I will do so today, once I get back to my pc. --Peter Talk 19:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed

We've hit 25 support votes with no opposition. Given launch is two days away, I suggest Peter and Inas request the permissions ASAP. The information they'll need to submit is here; it may be worth submitting it in advance rather than waiting to be asked for it. LtPowers (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the request, and emailed the appropriate documents. --Inas (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The request was declined as the above discussion was improperly done. --Rschen7754 23:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the opinion of the stewards, it appears to be the case. I'll reset the nomination process. --Inas (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the comments above about the unfairness of the process: this happened because it was not possible to support one but not the other. Two stewards (Snowolf, Vituzzu) strongly hinted above that this joint nomination would not be accepted. The bar for CU and OS elections is set very high because of the high level of trust needed for such private information. --Rschen7754 02:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Totally, not a big deal, we'll revote and all will be good  :) – cacahuate talk 02:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reject the notion that "it was not possible to support one but not the other". We are not automatons; it is simple to say "Support Inas and Oppose Peter". No one even tried to do so, or implied that he or she would like to. So whose voice was not being heard? Who was silenced? It's absurd. LtPowers (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a matter of formalities because access to CheckUser is a big deal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basically. A few months ago, we had someone try and get an English Wikipedia CheckUser's access removed. Thankfully, this was covered in the policy, but you wouldn't want some disgruntled vandal coming over to Meta and asking for their CU tools to be removed over a technicality, right? --Rschen7754 03:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No; I just don't see what technicality exists here. I've seen a lot of vague assertions about why the joint nom was unacceptable without any actual, concrete issues being raised. The only semblance of a legitimate potential problem was the "what if someone doesn't support both?" question, which is both easily circumventable, and entirely moot in this case. LtPowers (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have hit the 25 votes needed for Inas without any opposition. Let's roll and congratulations Inas. jan (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency

I know I'm not going to be flavour of the month for raising questions of procedure again, but I do feel strongly enough about transparency to object to this edit, which removed the signed writings of many editors. I appreciate that the edit was made with good intentions and interested (and knowledgeable) parties can still review the edit history of this page to find out what happened, but I still find this edit less than satisfactory. -- Alice✉ 23:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

→ Nominations archives. --Peter Talk 23:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Peter; that resolves my concerns. -- Alice✉ 23:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Withdraw?

Since Peter has withdrawn his nom, we should either table Inas' nom as well and let the stewards handle cu for now, or nominate another so that there are two per the requirement. I vote for the former, what do y'all think? – cacahuate talk 05:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Peter's comments when he withdrew his nomination (in this now archived edit) were well thought out (which is partly why I deprecated their almost instantaneous removal from this page) and I have a suspicion that Inas may share them - but I'm sure we'll hear from Inas directly on that score... -- Alice✉ 06:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Probably best to table it since even if successful, he won't get the permissions yet. If we need to in the future, we can go through this entire rigamarole again. LtPowers (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Peter's wish to "outsource" this function during the launch phase. We have stewards who have shown themselves to be capable, helpful, patient and responsive, so why not exploit them during the launch phase when there is so much to do :-) (well, perhaps that isn't the best summary of Peter's opinion, but I can read between the lines). There is no rush here, but I personally still think we should have a medium term objective of moving these administrative functions local. I'm not fussed if it is me, Peter, or anyone else, but I remain happy to help. Of course, if people would rather the stewards to continue in these tasks in the long term, then please speak up. If this forms a new consensus, then of course I'll withdraw. If we want to keep moving along this course, then lets just pause here, and resume in a couple of weeks when we're a bit more settled. --Inas (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put! Bravo!
I've yet to hear persuasive arguments as to why these functions should be localised, but if and when I do and if the consensus is to localise, you will have my full support. Meanwhile, I think it's an excellent idea to continue to garner support for individual candidates while we debate at leisure the pros and cons of localisation. -- Alice✉ 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
We could leave Inas' nomination up, let it pass, resurrect mine when I'm ready, and then have local checkusers. --Peter Talk 04:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need a hand?

Hey guys.

Welcome to the WMF family! Since you need at least two checkusers on a project, I thought I could offer my services temporarily until you've got sufficient critical mass. I'm an experienced checkuser on the English Wikipedia and, while I'm not familiar with your processes yet (but I like what I see!) I understand the tool and the Foundation policy well, and I know the usual cross-wiki vandals well.

I don't have tons of time to dedicate to a new project, but I'd really like to help start your checkuser team up on the right foot as my small contribution. Just holler if I can be of use. — Coren (talk-enwp) 04:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's great that you want to help us out and terrific that you say you have both the technical knowledge and experience on the English Wikipedia. My reservation would lie with your lack of time to devote to the task. You will already appreciate that the IP and cookie trail rarely gives black and white answers and one must often rely on particular grammar constructions and unusual spelling mistakes and punctuation contributions to clinch matters. Obviously I am personally prejudiced, having suffered the incompetent and erroneous declaration of a previous check user for many years now, but I'd hate to see someone not having the time to properly investigate cases when called upon to do so. Thanks again! -- Alice✉ 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I think that my contribution would mostly be to help your own checkuser team get started by sharing knowledge, giving a hand with the more complicated investigation while they get their feet wet, and providing guidance and crosscheck. It's much better to have a team of "native" checkusers – and that should be your objective – but the first several months are going to be tough on the new guys and having an experienced CU to fall back on could be of use.

      I don't think time is an issue in the short term, but I wanted it to be clear that I could not do a long-term commitment to stay as part of the team once it's up and running.  :-) — Coren (talk-enwp) 13:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thanks for that clarification, Coren. It's very clear from both your clarifying comments above and Rschen's below that it would be terrific if you were able to find the time to provide one-on-one coaching to our local check user team until they all know the ropes — if we decide, on the balance of utility, to actually have a local check user team... -- Alice✉ 20:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm obviously biased as Coren is from my home project, and I won't be voting here, but I think that it would be helpful to have him around to help the new checkusers (even if you have two already) learn the tools, even if on a temporary basis. Otherwise, you're stuck with the situation where your local CUs are having difficulty interpreting the results or using the tools, and the stewards are no longer able to fulfill the requests as there are local users with the rights. The English Wikipedia has the most problems with vandalism and long-term abusers, and the experience and knowledge of various ISPs, the locations of known trolls, etc. would also be helpful. (I reported one of those LTAs earlier today, and familiarity with this guy when he comes back to sock would help!) Finally, the English Wikipedia has the most developed CU program on any WMF wiki (see w:en:WP:SPI) and an entire team to make sure that the CUs are behaving properly (see w:en:WP:AUSC). So I think this would be helpful rather than having to start with the CU tool cold. But of course, it's probably best to wait a few weeks when things get less chaotic. :) --Rschen7754 05:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This makes a lot of sense to me. When we get serious about doing this (probably not too far off in the future), I think we should tap a cross-wiki user like Coren. --Peter Talk 07:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hold it; I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I haven't agreed to serve in this way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers: User:LtPowers user declined

Checkusers: User:Peterfitzgerald user withdrew nomination

I think it might be useful to have local checkusers in the upcoming week for the launch, in part out of concern that a few known parties hostile to our project launch might harass new contributors and generally be disruptive, using multiple accounts and ips to circumvent blocks already in place. Using local checkusers rather than filing requests on Meta for individual cases will be a lot more efficient, and allows us to keep from fanning flames across wikis ;)

I'm nominating myself and Ian for the role, as we need two per Meta:CheckUser policy#Access to CheckUser, and so that we can keep an eye on each other! I am familiar with the Meta:Privacy policy and will respect it to the letter, using this tool only to investigate significant disruption, and never using it to reveal private information about users per policy: don't reveal a user's "IP, whereabouts, or other information sufficient to identify them, unless they have already revealed this information themselves on the project." I'll let Inas affirm the same in a statement accepting the nomination.

Both of us have been admins with the project for about 5 years, I'm also a bureaucrat, yada, yada. Checkuser investigations will hopefully be rare here, since we don't block people for using multiple accounts unless they are being used to circumvent blocks.

We'll need at least 25 statements of support to satisfy the requirements for local checkuser privileges, so let's see if we have that many people working here! --Peter Talk 07:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing my nomination per the discussion below. Having local checkusers would mean that our community of stewards would not be able to help with CU needs during the launch, and we would better benefit from their expertise in the weeks ahead.
--Peter Talk 18:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support. Peter is a trusted, and identified member of the community. --Inas (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support – cacahuate talk 01:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Tom Holland (Xltel) (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Globe-trotter (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Jpatokal (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support — Ravikiran (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, under protest; it's absurd that we have to do this separately. LtPowers (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I don't understand why my previous vote of support was declared invalid. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, again. K7L (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support –sumone10154(talk) 03:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per what was said in this email. I'm not sure that this is the correct use of CheckUser and also I'd prefer for CheckUsers to not connect IP addresses with accounts and vice versa.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you are pointing to the right email... Snowolf How can I help? 12:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably am not, but the quote Billinghurst mentions below is what I'm talking about.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Long term editor with the best interests of the project at heart. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support --Alexander (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Jjtk (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. --Saqib (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Again.jan (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Avenue (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support -Shaundd (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Rogerhc (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly nominate myself, Andre Carrotflower, as a Wikivoyage administrator.

Though I know the official launch of Wikivoyage as a WMF project has made our site a busy place of late, I have chosen to nominate myself at this particular point in time with the expectation that with a sharp increase in activity at Wikivoyage will come a sharp increase in the need for the duties that administrators perform. As always, I am eager to pitch in and help clean up what will likely be a lot more messes than before.

I've been active on Wikivoyage and the former site for a bit more than a year, since December 2011. Perhaps I don't have as much experience as many others have had upon being confirmed as administrators; however, I feel that that deficiency is more than made up for by the vigor with which I have contributed to (and created) a number of articles, my active participation in policy discussions and processes including the featured article nominations, my firm grasp of our community's protocol and the care that I take in adhering to it, and my amicable relationship with my fellow Wikivoyagers which has helped me to, I think, play as much of a role as anyone else in building up Wikivoyage not only as a resource for travelers but also as a community of people.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- Alice✉ 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, they say "write what you know". :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will be a good administrator. ;)

Indeed, and the font issue is only just scratching the surface of this user's "problematic record on the English Wikipedia". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; I've been following the saga on Wikipedia to some degree, and have read your comments there which opine that describing the specifics of the issue would further aggravate the problem. I agree with you and have endeavored to abide by that in my comments here. However, I think it's safe to say that the Wikipedia issue, and the secondary questions that are raised, are of sufficient gravity as to preclude any motion to elevate this user to admin status on Wikivoyage for the foreseeable future (not to mention this user's general unfamiliarity with even the most basic Wikivoyage policies and guidelines as evidenced here, complete lack of mainspace edits, etc. etc. ad nauseam.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No evidence of an interest in building a travel guide (as opposed to their own user page and chit chat). No evidence of a knowledge of policies. -- Alice✉ 09:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. From our Admin criteria: Administrators have shown a good appreciation of the Wikivoyage policies and guidelines and made significant contributions on Wikivoyage articles.. As of this datestamp, not one edit in mainspace. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The nomination fails on all counts and should be closed as frivolous self-nomination. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; is there some way we can archive this before the 14 days are over? I think it's effectively impossible for this user to overcome the unanimous opposition to his nomination and, frankly, we have bigger fish to fry here than this nonsense. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been around here for quite a while (Oct 2008) racking up almost 3500 edits, including about 1000 since the move to Wikivoyage (almost half of that between the 15th and the time of this nomination). I've participated in a lot of discussions about the move (including a lot of lengthy posts), which has re-acquainted me with all our policies. Hopefully I can be trusted with admin rights...being able to rollback multiple edits at a time, block vandals, & delete pages would have been really useful this week with all the editing going on. Also being able to patrol (and see patrolled/unpatrolled edits) would be useful when going through recent edits to fix issues, spot vandals, & check new users' edits. AHeneen (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After 14 days of discussion (17 - 31 Jan):

  • The nomination has been given the support of the community, including at least two other administrators,
  • The user has indicated a willingness to take on the job of administration, and
  • There are no outstanding objections.

Time to flip the bit. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and if you give me a chance, I'll get to it. I'm not on 24/7. LtPowers (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikivoyage talk:Administrator nominations#Nurg.2C putting my hand up Nurg has volunteered to join the shiny button club, and after reviewing this user's history it seems like a nomination is warranted. From the user's own comments:

  1. Logged-in editor since Nov 2003. Edit count: 1,188 at WT; 393 at WV.
  2. Contributor to policy since Dec 2003 when I created Time and date formats.
  3. Main admin for a small non-WMF MediaWiki since 2007 in my professional life. It has little vandalism but a lot of spam so main activities are blocking spammers, deleting spam pages, and dealing with a little vandalism.
  4. Rollbacker on WP since I can't remember when.
  5. Over 17,000 edits on WP (including 500+ in projects, policies, templates), and smaller number on wiktionary, commons, meta.
  6. I don't normally do much pure patrolling-type work here. I normally just write article stuff, and a bit of policy stuff, and otherwise do much more of the same at WP. Have been doing some checking of recent changes here after the public launch though.

-- Ryan • (talk) • 21:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rschen7754 for temporary admin

Rschen7754 is an admin at the english Wikipedia and is since the going live of WV en an excellent spotter for vandals, trolls and spammers that are known convicts from WP/WMF etc (ca. 200 edits within the last days!). I suggest to entrust him (similar as snowolf) with temporary admin rights to help us battle the negative side from our new popularity.

  • Clarification: Support for temporary or permanent admin.
  • I also support Rschen7754 for a "permanent"/non-temporary role here as admin, if he wants it. He's a thoughtful, experienced hand that would clearly help us along with our project. --Peter Talk 23:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: support as permanent admin. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After 14 days of discussion (17 - 31 Jan):

  • The nomination has been given the support of the community, including at least two other administrators,
  • The user has indicated a willingness to take on the job of administration, and
  • There are no outstanding objections.

Time to flip the bit. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see above, the bit was flipped almost immediately after the nomination was made. There are no more bits to flip. LtPowers (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Felix has a long contributions history, and is an experienced patroller. He is very familiar with the workings of Wikivoyage, and has a deft touch in dealing with more difficult users. The only downside to this nomination that I can think of is having to wait 2 weeks for the demotion! He has indicated his willingness to serve here . --Peter Talk 19:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I have been serving the English Wikivoyage community as a temporary admin since mid-November, and I am now proposing myself as a permanent one with the outlook of providing continued support to this project. You might have seen my work around, mainly vandalfighting, helping out (in a small part) with migrating images, setting up or tweaking interface pages and various tools and explaining how the global infrastructure of Wikimedia works. I think I could be of continued help to the project in those roles for quite some time :) Outside of Wikivoyage, I serve as an administrator and oversighter on the English Wikipedia and as a Wikimedia steward on all of the projects. Thank you for your consideration, Snowolf How can I help? 18:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After 14 days of discussion (17 - 31 Jan):

  • The nomination has been given the support of the community, including at least two other administrators,
  • The user has indicated a willingness to take on the job of administration, and
  • There are no outstanding objections (in my opinion the issue above has been resolved).

Time to flip the bit. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sure what is wikivoyage and it's policies. I want to be a administrator, since I want to anti-destruction, protecting pages and helping , welcomeing new user. Please vote for me, Thank you. --Chihonglee ◎Talk page 04:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as frivolous self-nomination. This user:
a) has only eighteen contributions to his credit, none of which are in mainspace
b) appears to not be nearly as familiar with Wikivoyage policy as he claims to be (some examples, just off the top of my head, include the warning on his talk page about copying templates from WP and the fact that this nomination was originally at the top of the page)
c) is clearly not proficient in the English language, which would make it extremely difficult if not impossible for the user to perform administrative duties on the English Wikivoyage.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a particularly high level of English proficiency should be a requirement. But the fact that his main record on Wikimedia projects is at zh.wp, where he was blocked for vandalism, plus the frivolous nominations here and elsewhere (even a steward self-nom), raise concern. --Peter Talk 06:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's probably very young. Perhaps a polite, friendly and diplomatic suggestion on his user page asking him to withdraw his self-nomination? If he does withdraw, that would be a good indication that he is able to learn and take advice... -- Alice✉ 06:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps there's nothing in our policy that specifically bars from admin status on en.wv those who aren't proficient in English, but de facto it's a necessary skill to have. The finer points of things like identifying fluff or touting, and vandalism of the less obvious variety, requires a level of proficiency in English that is higher than this user's seems to be. Anyway, the lack of editing experience and familiarity with policy (to say nothing of his record on zh.wp, which I was not aware of) are more important IMO, hence their placement higher on my list. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of local administrators who are proficient in the target language, there are sometimes admins on small wikis who do not speak the language at all (and vandal-fighters - the entire premise of the m:SWMT), but that's not the case here. Looking at global contributions, this editor strikes me as what's known as a hat collector - a relatively inexperienced editor who goes around to WMF wikis asking for userrights that they are clearly not qualified for. I've noticed they've filed requests for rights for beta.wikiversity.org and an account on foundationwiki, and access on mediawiki. Chihonglee, userrights are not things to collect, and if you proceed to request userrights that you are not qualified for, you will continue to have your requests turned down and possibly forfeit any chance of gaining them for a very long time. --Rschen7754 06:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sidebar: is there some way that all of a user's contributions over all wikis can be seen on the same page, or does it have to be done piecemeal? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
luxo:Chihonglee. There's many other tools available, such as sulutil:Chihonglee. --Rschen7754 07:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Welcome to Wikivoyage, Chihonglee. Stay here a while and familiarize yourself with the policies and culture of this site, and then maybe in a year, you might possibly be a candidate for admin, but I don't guarantee anything. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I admire the bold way you're plunging forward but I think it's a little too early for us to be sure you have a firm grasp of both our policies and the stamina to be a steady contributor. Good luck with an application in a few month's time. -- Alice✉ 05:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose May i suggest speedy finalisation of this hopeless nomination? jan (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Things like this on Metawiki (where the user tried to request a steward flag instead of holding an election) shows a huge misunderstanding of Wikimedia policies. Looking at the contributor's very small number of contributions to Wikivoyage, I do not see anything inticating that the user understands how the project works. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joined WT last May and has been a huge help throughout the transition. Sweeps the pub, organizes districts, participates in policy discussions, reverts vandalism dutifully. I say we take advantage of his eagerness and put him to work with the mop and bucket. LtPowers (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support He's been just an exemplary citizen. He's done so much great work on articles about Bangladesh as well as doing the tasks you enumerate and participating in policy discussions, and he's always done so with good humor. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

14 days of discussion have passed:

The nomination has been given the support of the community, including at least two other administrators,
The user has indicated a willingness to take on the job of administration, and
There are no outstanding objections.

Nomination successful, someone flip the bit.

Thanks everyone for your kind and enthusiastic support. I look forward to a bright future for Wikivoyage. JamesA >talk 12:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jmh649 (Travel Doc James / James Heilman)

Would like to apply for adminship. Am interested in continuing to help with the development and maintenance of the main page which since the launch is only editable by admins. While I am a fairly new editor here I have the projects best at heart. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to support you, but please say more about your experience on other Wikis, since I think that could help your case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I have been editing English Wikipedia since 2008 and have been an admin there since 2010. My user page can be seen here. Have played a major role in written around 20 good articles / featured article in English. Am a board member of both Wikimedia Canada and Wiki Project Med Foundation. Have made 75,000+ edits to 57 projects Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No this is my first attempt. A few news outlets however though I was an admin at WT a while ago :-) Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 14 days now and the criteria have clearly been met, so it's time to flip the bit. -- Alice✉ 01:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I affirm that I am familiar with the appropriate policies and will adhere to them. --Inas (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support – cacahuate talk 01:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Tom Holland (Xltel) (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Globe-trotter (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Jpatokal (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support — Ravikiran (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, under protest; it's absurd that we have to do this separately. LtPowers (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I don't understand why my previous vote of support was declared invalid. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, again. K7L (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support –sumone10154(talk) 03:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Long term editor with the best interests of the project at heart. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Well, hey, now I get to vote ;) --Peter Talk 06:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support --Alexander (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Jjtk (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. --Saqib (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support jan (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support --Avenue (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support -Shaundd (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Rogerhc (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support --cyrfaw (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Riggwelter (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support if the consensus is to localise this function from the 40 plus stewards - and I'm waiting to hear cogent and persuasive answers on this score. I must also declare an interest in having my name cleared as a sockpuppet (of exactly who or what is not clear at this stage) and I suspect this is more likely to happen with local checkusers that will be more familiar with my edit patterns. -- Alice✉ 04:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  24. Support AHeneen (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support MarkJaroski (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Ypsilon (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support sats (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. CURTAINTOAD! TALK! 09:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. PerryPlanet (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Ian is highly experienced in the Wikivoyage community and we are in need of more checkusers. I believe he has already met the quota so should be promoted? JamesA >talk 13:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A wiki cannot have just one checkuser. The nomination must remain unfulfilled until and unless we approve a second active checkuser. Until then, we're better off using Stewards; that's what they're there for. LtPowers (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll bring this up in the pub in the next week or two, and we can decide what we want to do. --Inas (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now kicked off a discussion at Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Local_Checkusers. Please feel free to chime in. --Inas (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that in a spree of welcome notices today to new users, I have considered putting my hand up as well. Also due to the fact that rollback/review rights have not been established here at wikivoyage, thought I'd nominate myself.

  1. Admin at commons - a mix of admin and contribution work
  2. Long term editor at wp:en - started a project and supported others - a clean SUL range with nothing worth reporting
  3. interested in supporting wikivoyage on patrolling work

-- sats (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I want to clarify my reasoning here a bit—I would enthusiastically support this nomination after seeing a record of patrolling. Once I see that someone is reliably working on cleaning up additions that need to be de-touted, have external links reformatted or removed as appropriate, etc., then I feel much more OK with passing out the extra buttons. --Peter Talk 20:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Wait. I agree with Peter. I really appreciate your kind offer, and I'd be happy for you to have autopatroller rights as a trusted user, if you don't already have them, but I would like to get to know you and your work on this site a little before giving you a vote for admin. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Wait. Perhaps it's poor form to not reciprocate support for the nomination of someone who supported my own. But in all honesty, I agree with the above two commenters. I'd love to see it happen in the future, though. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Per Pashley. Some functions of the admin bit are universal, such as dealing with disruptive users/vandals and blocks, protections, etc, and Sats has plenty of experience with these. Other things can be learned quickly on the job. He certainly wouldn't screw anything up with the tools. Otherwise, if adminship is going to be reserved for old-timers, why not dispense with the formality and let the 'crats just assign adminship to those they know, atleast for the next few months until non-insiders get more experience? INeverCry 23:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly, but I think we should discuss that at Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits. Our project traditionally has had a less confrontational and bureaucratic-style way of dealing with vandals. There are fewer rigid processes to go through, and we discourage use of admin tools when avoidable. We also usually have a lot of community input when using tools like blocks and protects, except for certain defined circumstances. --Peter Talk 02:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another experienced admin from other WMF sites, User:Rschen7754, has been nominated above for temporary admin rights here. Would that be a good solution for SatuSuro? Should it perhaps be a policy; experienced admins from elsewhere can have temp admin here (for how long?), but cannot be made permanent until they have a local record of contributions? Would that satisfy those saying "wait"? Pashley (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would raise alot more issues. Temp for how long? How many contributions would be needed before permanent adminship? Another vote after temp period is up? RFC for the policy? How long does the policy stay in place? Also, what would be the policy for removal of temp adminship, which is a bit like de-sysopping because you'd basically be saying the temp admin didn't cut it? INeverCry 23:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I supported the nomination of Rschen without hesitation because I've already seen a good deal of Rchen's work here. I am not familiar with SatuSuro or his/her work and would like to see him/her in action on Wikivoyage for at least a few weeks in order to be able to be able to fairly give it a positive evaluation, as I would fully expect to do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed these RFAs here last 2 weeks, so maybe by the end of this you'll be able to switch to support? INeverCry 03:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is very possible. I will pay special attention to SatuSuro's work. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Its good to see questions raised from my self nom - I do hope that it is of benefit to the project if you get discussion like that. Seeing it is a 14 dayprocess I will indeed 'wait' - to see what else emanates. cheers and thanks for the comments so far. One point - user edit histories and experience that is mentioned by the 'long timers' about their compatriots - has not been migrated into the the new wikivoyage user summaries - perhaps the mention of experience shows a need for new users that there was a life before it doesnt show up in the new format - sats (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ok, let me be the bad guy. Yes you do a good job in welcoming newbies but i would definitely want to see a longer contribution period and also some edits in our policy sections. I nominated Rschen7754 for temp admin because he does an excellent job in combatting the spammers/trolls/nerds that plague us a the moment. WV is slightly different, so imho someone needs to contribute at least for 3-6 months before he can start an nom. We granted snowolf with temp admin three month ago and he now runs for the permament admin without objection. jan (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - its interesting to see that some things are being done on the run during the time of transition, and from what I can see it is being done well - - If in fact there is a consensus on your suggestion - then it needs to be up there in the administration nomination text as to exactly that - so that others are not similarly treated to such a mixed response.
  • Also for a wp en editor to come over and see explantions of nominations for people who have unmigrated edit history of 130 edits or so - the template works/tweakers need to consider providing migrated info of candidates from the previous format into the template of an editors history - as from the surface without checking carefully, it looks mightily spurious first off.
Thanks anyways, I find the fact that the other nominations are relatively free of this sort of commentary, suggests that more text is required in the nomination criteria text, if there is sufficient support for working out the issue of temporary and wait time criteria as hard policy rahter than occurring in a nomination. sats (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SatuSuro: So far we didn't need hard policy because we have been an organicly grown project. The move to WMF resulted in a major jump that we try to cover. I'm sorry that you are the victim of this fast growth. Usually editors participate and over time they grow and the community has a feeling if there is a fit. We created the temp admin nomination due to the WMF transition and the going live which overwhelmed the WV incumbents. I love to see new users feeling comfortable at WV but we are a bit different to WP, therefore imho most of us would like to see some commitment to our policies. I'm positive about WMF/WP but the focus is different. Let us start a bit slowly and i would definitely support temp admin for you. Last: Yes, we need to codify at some point in time the temp admin nomination process but at the moment i'm happy to work on the content tide and utilize our influx to make things (Photos etc.) better here. Regards, jan (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks very much for your taking the time to explain, please do not apologise for anything - I would be much happier to see something positive to come out of this nomination of the outcome - just check my SUL - I am no fly by  :) (well maybe at 38 projects) ... and if anyone can invent a welcoming bot aka script - I'd the first to say yay!!, even if I am a bit old for that sort of thing sats (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think temporary adminship would be appropriate for 3 months - that's how most "new" wikis start off anyway when new admins are needed but most of the experience is on other projects. --Rschen7754 09:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it really is just an exercise in understanding the changes of what are happening here at wikivoyage by watching the discussion at the admin nominations alone - and one wonders how in the long run the process of change will further develop in view of the comments on some of the other nominations - I think the process of assuming that nominees understand wikivoyage policy and logic of formation of articles to date might be one thing, but the other - watching the personalities flex their bargaining skills with I'll resign! suggests that a more formal process akin to some of that is implemented at wp en might be required to actually approach consensus (or at least a significant proportion of agreement) on some issues rather than bulky conversations that appear to lack resolution. Also I fail to see where any one editors comments should or could be 'considered the last word' on a particular subject - the community does itself a disservice if that happens - the diversity of voices in a community like this one should be maintained and respected sats (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should apologize for an overly extreme remark. I just think it's important for admins to have flexibility, and shortly after launch, I felt we were being deluged with vandals who were wasting a lot of time. It's certainly possible that one of the reasons things have quieted down since then is that people like me summarily banned the vandals, and I would like to think that I didn't do something horrible by indefinitely banning really gross vandals in the clear interest of the site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good work on en wikipedia and commons. While I empathize with the concerns expressed on this nom (and the one way above) that there are differences in policies, guidelines and customs across wikis, and that admin noms should demonstrate an awareness of what the norms here are, I also think that a nascent project like this one should be willing and eager to welcome experienced editors into positions of responsibility. The fact is that this is no longer the old wiki and policies, guideline, norms, and procedures here are going to have to change and the more ideas and thoughts that we have, the better it is for this wiki. SatuSuro has 87,000+ edits spread over almost 8 years on en.wikipedia and is a sysop on commons with over 10,000+ edits. From all available evidence, he/she is a mature and experienced editor who will help shape the project as it grows in its new home and we should be glad to have him/her as an admin here. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Curtaintoad 10:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sats has gained my confidence and appreciation. I now unreservedly support his nomination to be an administrator on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not sure of my own current status to formally express an opinion on suitability as I have not yet received a demotion to admin status myself, so I will only comment here. I have only seen a sliver of SatuSuro's input here to date but what I have seen certainly indicates an embracing of the project's aims and outlook, plus a broader grounding borne by a depth of cross-Wiki experience, a considerable body of wiki edits, and (wiki) admin experience elsewhere. The project goals appear to be understood and a measured humility suitable to a travel wiki is apparent. My only reservations would be in concurrence with Peter, perhaps a level of specific WV project experience is required Patrolling edits to gain a 'feel' for the quite diverse content issues that often arise on WV. The various permeations of that can be a bit convoluted at times and have a very different dynamic to that found somewhere like WP or Commons. Potential issues arising from some of the content in the Eat, Drink and Sleep listings is a standout in that regard. Without any doubt SatuSuro is a notable asset to this project at any level, including that nominated here. -- Felix (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oustanding opposes? I'm still seeing a couple outstanding opposes here by Peter and AndreCarrotFlower, giving this a couple more days to see if they wish to change their comments, otherwise we'll need to archive this for now and try again soon. Would also be good if Jan and Ikan would officially strike out their original opposes, for clarity, since they seemed to change their mind further down in additional comments – cacahuate talk 16:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. To be blunt, I'd have preferred a longer contribution history - just for the precedent side of things. Our admin criteria doesn't mention a history of quality contributions to other projects, but it isn't explicitly excluded, so I've certainly weighed that in the equation. I have no doubt that sats makes some keen observations on the community by observing the nominations here, but in fairness I've seen a fair bit of development on both sides during the period of nomination. Diversity never hurt the project, and this user has a demonstrated ability to be fair. --Inas (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. It seems this wasn't going to pass anyhow, but as I look more, I also think it isn't necessary at this time. Very nice user, but nearly no mainspace editing, no reverts.... don't see a demonstrated need for admin tools, let's wait and renominate later if it becomes necessary. I'll let another admin close this nom, since i'm now one of the ones holding it up - it's past 14 days anyhow, so someone should close soon – cacahuate talk 03:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since we left the spambot plagued old domain, there have been very few incidents of graffiti, vandalism, or spam for sats to revert. (I know my own position is not popular with some admins who have been abusing their janatorial tools, but remains akin in spirit to the advice given here: "Rolling back unwanted edits. Administrators may use the rollback tool to quickly undo all changes to an article made by the most recent editor. Currently, it is not possible to leave an explanation of a revert in the edit summary, so this tool is usually reserved only for obvious cases of graffiti, vandalism, or spam."). For a while it may be very difficult for sats to demonstrate "a need for admin tools" and, in any case, "There are no carved-in-stone requirements". Finally, I do need to stress that the 14 days bit is a MINIMUM period to deal with any objections and not a maximum. (It was easy to mistake the latter in the previous wording at Wikivoyage:Administrators so, I hope my recent edits to the relevant page have made that part crystal clear.) -- Alice✉ 07:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - ironic, in that the nomination is a test ground for others sorting out what to do with nomninations of not the old gang... however if read carefully, I have said I was more concerned that the nomination process benefit the project, rather than my own particular interests. Also I have tried in a number locations to state that the process is required to make the wikivoyage difference from other wikis as accomodating and friendly as possible. The comments by the re-opening (so please note it had already been closed once... it is important to read the traces) and other editors were of good faith.

I have suggested also that when unsucessful nominations occur, that a simple courtesy requires either the closer/counter to actually communicate with the editor, regardless of how hopeless the case might be... Then also an equivalent list of the particular shortcomings of the application are well worth listing in that communication. Just because the clean support lists of nominations has occured to date, I do not think that there has been enough thought, even yet, as to some of the issues that have can be related to nomination, despite the changes of the requirements.

There is also a peculiar lack of any criteria where re-nominations might occur, as to whether/what the requirements might be where the editor (sic user) might not be very nice user - how the community of wikivoyage admins might cope with less savoury trojan style editors that has occurred at wp en appears to be not sorted out yet. As to 'judging' how the nomination process goes now that there are modifications of the requirements (since this nomination was in place mind you), I am sure, if the diversity of comments above are any indicator, then wikivoyage has a sufficiently robust collection of editors who apart from being well travelled are sufficiently diverse in their opinions as to formulate a project that is well worth being part of... I have no problem at all with waiting, but I will have as I explore this place, be quite certain to make further comment about thing that I encounter. At least administrator nominations has been cleaned up for a start in my time here so far Yes Done sats (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question 1 to cacahuate, jan and Peter: None of you technically placed an oppose vote against this nomination, but all suggest waiting. Now that we have had a better chance to see the nominee in action, what further period of waiting (if any) would you propose, please? -- Alice✉ 01:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Good question. My earlier wait vote, which I later retracted, was consciously intended to express concerns about Sats' nomination without standing in the way of his demotion should the other voters be in favor of it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think, (if you dont mind me joining in at this stage) is that the requirements actually changed between the self nomination and now, not only do I agree with the firmer regulating of the requirements, but consider that my nomination discussion is also so full of range of issues that do not relate to me personally in any way. This is a marvellous opportunity for someone to bite the bullet and perhaps acknowledging that the requirements have changed in the time since this nomination was opened, and now... In many other fields in life such an admission would require some level of tact. sats (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually jan (User:Jc8136)has an outstanding oppose unless I have missed something. I hereby request jan to clarify if this opposition still stands. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that the requirements have changed substantially. The same things are required of the nominee that were previously required, and that is mainly the confidence of the community, which is indicated by the support of a significant number of established members, and a lack of significant opposition. What has changed is a possibly greater clarity of what history is likely to elicit the required confidence, and how to deal with nominees who are clearly unsuitable. This is a step in the right direction. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question 2 to sats: Do you think you have an extensive knowledge of our policies - especially since, although you have made more than 80,000 edits at the English Wikipedia over the course of the last 7 years or so, our policies are very different in some core areas like NPOV, referencing and voting? -- Alice✉ 05:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I would not call it extensive in the sense of having explored each and every one of the issues that exist at http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Policies, however I have gleaned from what some might have thought a superflous amount of time on recent changes to see admins in action and understand why they were reverting edits - the acronyms they were using and the reason for the processes. My own article editing here at wikivoyage has enjoyed the freedom of not having to worry about NPOV and WP:RS (a wiki that doesnt worry about those issues must be good...) - and I also have been exposed to my own level of ignorance of meta issues in time at the travellers pub - I think that has worked well for others - they might have learnt a few things as well. As I have said at the upper part of the self nomination, my interest is for the project - if others fear for precedent and or credibility of the new re-arrangement of the criteria for nomination, I have no problem with any result here, I am still very keen to work on the big holes that exist in vast parts of the project, it is quite enthrallling the amount of work required here. sats (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have not commented on this nomination until now, as I originally had no opinion on whether User:SatuSuro would be suitable as an admin on this wiki, but over the last few weeks I have developed the opinion that SatuSuro would be a better than average admin who is able to remain detached and objective in a debate like this, and appears to have the best interests of the community in mind. As a consequence I am now able to fully support this nomination. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose granting permanent admin status until 18 March 2013 at the earliest since I am not yet convinced sats has yet demonstrated sufficient knowledge of our policies. I am convinced (like Peter Southwood above) that sats will be able to exercise sound and judicious mopping when he understands all the nuances of our policies. This formal opposition is with the beliefs that in the intervening month he should be able to persuade me and others in this regard and that we also need to resolve this nomination in a way that does not set a bad precedent. -- Alice✉ 07:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support granting temporary admin status until 18 May 2013 when, if full admin status has not been granted, temporary admin status should be withdrawn without prejudice to further nomination(s) -- Alice✉ 07:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - that all makes good sense if one has been following http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage_talk:Administrator_nominations#New_requirements_to_prevent_newbie_nominations - if the issue is the concern about setting a precedent, and the rather drawn out process at the talk page which I gather is becoming quite tedious for some, the combination is a rather bloated nomination talk page, and a bloated nomination space here, and an equally go no-where nomination. sats (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – @Alice: "wait" is a nicer way of saying oppose. This nomination has run it's course, and should be closed at this point. I don't plan to withdraw my own opposition at this time, as I don't see a demonstrated need for the tools, although I'm glad to see that Sats has now started editing in the main namespace. I personally don't think we are in desperate need of more admins, especially since the launch frenzy has subsided; I believe we should get back to experienced and local long-term editors handling those tasks. Would another admin mind officially closing this now? – cacahuate talk 21:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait implies a temporary delay, possibly until something is cleared up. Oppose is clear and unambiguous, though possible less "nice". When assessing a consensus, oppose is much easier to understand. I agree there is no 'demonstrated need' for the tools, but think they would be well used if issued.
  • How does one demonstrate need for the tools? Is it a need for the tools to do the work you choose to do, but cannot do because you don't have them, or a need for more people to do the work that needs the tools? It can't be a need for the tools to do the work one is already doing, as one already has those tools, or wouldn't be able to do it. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There does not appear to be a requirement to need the tools, even less demonstrate this to be the case, in the guidelines that I am aware of. Am I missing something? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Normally I would ask this question in the Pub but this nomination is very long and the answer may be relevant. Wikivoyage:Administrators#Ending_administrator_privileges states "Administrators who abuse their privileges can have those privileges revoked via nomination.". Where are both the procedures and the nomination page for that, please? -- Alice✉ 23:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know this has never happened (except in the fringe case of the self appointed IBobi back on Wikitravel, where protests were made, but without any real hope of action). Consequently there has not been a need for a procedure. It would seem reasonable to use the Travellers' pub to start a discussion, and if there appeared to be support, make a nomination on this page to revoke priveleges. The proper place for a discussion on the process would be on the discussion page for Wikivoyage:Administrators. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the event of serious abuse (admin goes and blocks everyone in sight, compromised account, etc.) stewards can remove the administrator's flags pending discussion from the local community. --Rschen7754 06:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt response Peter Southwood and Rschen7754 and I apologise for raising this here rather than at Wikivoyage talk:Administrators. (I have noticed that you recently made an appropriate amendment, Rschen7754). My question was asked in the context of my (perhaps wrongly) perceiving that, since nobody has ever had the mop snatched away from them (except illicitly by IBadmins), some objectors might think they had better be ultra-cautious about appointing any new janitors. -- Alice✉ 07:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Per Alice's comment upthread: I certainly don't think having an additional admin would be wasted. It's not like we have a limited budget to pay admins or something (0 x whatever still = 0). However, I won't belabor the point, as there is still outstanding opposition to this particular user becoming an admin at this time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so. And I would add that there has been a considerable increase in spamming lately, and possibly also in touting, so we definitely can use more admins right now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably we need to have the outstanding opposition retracted. If so, would those who said wait please indicate whether we have waited long enough yet? I refer you to User:SatuSuro's contributions history, which appears to me to show sufficient mainspace activity to allow us to finalise this nomination. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only outstanding opposition I'm seeing on this thread is Alice's, and she's curtailed her Wikivoyage activity so sharply that I wonder if she's still an active user. I certainly haven't seen her around lately. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly remain an active user in the sense that I review the many changes to articles on my watchlist every day. However, due to my current duty roster, it is not easy (especially with slow satellite connections) to be confident that my edits will not inadvertently delete text due to cacheing errors. When I switch to the Ethiopean route in a couple of months I hope that situation may change. Being truthful, it also seems less than worthwhile until my "Sooty" tag is withdrawn to bother commenting on policy. Incidents like this are quite discouraging - I really do fail to see how restoring "Sq" as a commonly used abbreviation for "Square" should be thought vandalism. -- Alice✉ 13:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I see a wait from Peter Fitzgerald, an oppose from jan, and a rather complicated oppose/wait/support temporary appointment from Alice. I interpret Alice's position to be roughly equivalent to wait. We have waited, but have we waited long enough? I think we have. I will ping Alice and jan for comment, Peter is unlikely not to notice this discussion. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still see an outstanding oppose from cacahuate above - or have I missed something?
No, I think I missed it • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very difficult to unreservedly support the appointment of any new admins until we have clarified the procedure for removing existing admins -I still fail to see cogent reasons for trying to make the removal process any less transparent than the appointment process. -- Alice✉ 13:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Can we take this as an abstention on principle, and not an opposition to SatuSuro?
As I understand it, If you have a reason to nominate an administrator for desysopping, or whatever the word would be, You nominate them on this page with your reasons, and the procedural details would depend on the reasons given. Since there are many possible reasons, from the trivial, such as death of the admin in question, or voluntary retirement, to complicated issues of persecution, harassment or conflicts of interest, it would be largely a waste of time to try to draw up a detailed process at this stage, since whatever was proposed, would have to be sufficiently flexible to be changed to suit the circumstances, and there would be no guarantee that it would work anyway. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Peter.
Again, and as I would expect from you, correct Peter.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have never proposed any overly complex or tendentious revocation procedure. I've restored the necessary minimum changes with this edit and we will see if the existing admins are prepared to behave in a more collegiate and transparent way by refraining from abusing the revert buttons. -- Alice✉ 00:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support JuliasTravels (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Waited long enough, does good work. Procedural discussions shouldn't be a reason to keep an admin nomination from being closed. Also, (on a general note, nothing about Sats) buttons aren't given for life. Sure, a selection procedure and some reviews are a good thing, but if you do a good job and are willing to be an admin, that's great as far as I'm concerned. If it turns out it was a bad call to give buttons to anyone, it's not that hard to correct the mistake. In Sats case however, I'm not worried *at all*. Go for it :-)[reply]
  • Comment I started the mess with my outright opposition to these nomination. As i was almost four weeks on the run, i just checked Sats history and like what i see. Julias correctly says, that procedural questions shouldn't stop good contributors, so i switch my opposition to support even i wished we hadn't such a fuss about it and switched it to temp from the start. Welcome to the club and start mopping;-) jan (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see only ONE outstanding oppose from cacahuate above - or have I missed something again? -- Alice✉ 07:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a temporary admin here for about 2.5 months, and would like to become a permanent admin; I figure now is a good time since I'm approaching the traditional 3 months. I haven't been as active since the launch as I've wanted to be (since I am an admin on the English Wikipedia and Wikidata as well) but I've still made several spambot blocks and done some speedy deletion requests, which I still find the tools useful for. I check my watchlist a few times a day and contribute to discussions when I have something to add, and I also idle in the #cvn-wikivoyage channel on IRC, an automated channel that displays possible spam/vandalism edits for people to check. When I find the time, I want to add to some of the articles as well, as I enjoy travel. I hope that I still have the trust of the community. :) --Rschen7754 05:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alice, don't be silly. First, we have an adequate revocation procedure — discuss it here, and act if there is consensus. Second, that is entirely irrelevant to this (or any other) nomination. Pashley (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is no requirement to create or improve the revocation procedures before concluding an admin nomination. Clearly precedent allows this, and therefore it is long standing existing consensus. However this is a page for the opinions of Wikivoyagers about appointing admins, and these should not be reverted just because one thinks they are not valid. Rebutted, sure, but preferably without getting personal. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how revocation procedures have any relevance to this nomination. I don't think we'll get to a point where an admin is on a banning-spree and we have no idea what to do because a strict, step-by-step procedure isn't down in writing. And Rschen has been a temporary admin for a few months, ample time to go on a banning-spree and allow us to revoke his rights. That obviously hasn't happened, so we needn't worry about revoking his rights at a later date. JamesA >talk 14:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it clear that it is not User:Rschen7754 I am worried about. I remain concerned that existing admins wish the procedures for revocation should be hidden from this page. -- Alice✉ 01:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - as far as I can tell one of the very few editors around with true competence in cross-wikiness and meta presence that is essential for the perspective on the relationship between wikivoyage and various sister projects and the issues that arise - that in itself I believe to be an increasingly important perspective. sats (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWait While I would prefer that the admin corps be drawn from the community, I see no reason why one person should dictate what goes on here. If there is one thing I've learned as a Wikipedian, it is that neither I nor anyone else has cornered the market on being right! I hope Rschen will contribute content on Wikivoyage, if only to understand that the differences with Wikipedia and I wish him well. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer to see some content contributions first. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily I'd agree. However, Rschen's crosswiki expertise has been of such value to us over the past months that IMO it's prudent to overlook the relative paucity of content contributions from him. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I'm sure he's a useful addition to the admin corps. I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of admins with no experience at all in contributing travel related content. He has expressed the desire to contribute content and I'd prefer to wait till there is some evidence of interest in the purpose of this wiki.--RegentsPark (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that User:Snowolf was promoted to permanent admin with even fewer content contributions than me... --Rschen7754 01:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...and on a similar rationale (crosswiki experience), to boot. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also the founder of the U.S. Roads WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, and have written featured articles there, so it's not like this is completely in left field, either. :) --Rschen7754 02:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rschen7754's work here hasn't been in the field of content-generation, it's been in the field of... administrative work. His work has been quite helpful, his participation in policy discussions has shown that he understands our local policies and works well with others, and his active use of the tools shows that he understands how they work and how to use them effectively. We have several admins whose contributions are overwhelmingly... administrative. The tools are needed for functions unrelated to travel writing, so I'm not sure why anyone would think travel writing a prerequisite. We certainly never have before, and there is (deliberately) no mention of this at Wikivoyage:Administrators#Nomination. --Peter Talk 02:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would find it very frustrating if Rschen7754 were to be denied confirmation as a permanent administrator because one person thinks that, instead of judging how trustworthy he's been as a temporary administrator, we should judge him on the quality of his travel article content. People don't have to be admins to add quality content, and while taking the leadership in adding content is a good basis for nominating someone who has otherwise shown him-/herself to be trustworthy, it's that quality of trustworthiness and commitment to the mission of the site that is most important in an admin, and on that basis, I don't see where there would be an objection to Rschen7754. I would go as far as to say that if this nomination gets shot down on the basis of a single objection, we may need to serious consider modifying the rule by consensus, which may not continue to work indefinitely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute the relevance of this objection per the requirements for nomination and arguments above. If the objection is not relevent, it does not count as an outstanding objection in terms of the policy. RegentsPark is free to express a preference for more content contributions, but this does not affect the current nomination. It is a matter for a proposal to change the policy, and until the policy has been changed to include the proposed requirement, it remains as it is. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the "guidelines for becoming an administrator" above, "Have a history of article contribution" is one of the criteria, so while I emphatically support this nomination, I don't see how the objection is not relevant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I referred to the actual policy page at Wikivoyage:Administrators#Becoming_an_administrator which is a little different - in particular "There are no carved-in-stone requirements". There is also a slight difference between "Have a history of article contribution" and "some content contributions", though probably not much in intent - the first one is a bit vague, second is more specific. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On this occasion User:Peterfitzgerald's stance is correct in principle if not in fact. I can not see travel writing as being logically a necessary requirement for being given admin's tools. (Speaking generally and without regard to the current candidate, in some ways a lack of content contribution can be an advantage for an admin that may, as a last resort, have to protect a page that is the subject of edit warring). If we are not being completely hypocritical and tongue in cheek when we say this is a "janitorial" position, content generation is not an obvious requirement to have enshrined in policy pages. However, this just highlights the need to have transparent (and clearly stated) requirements for both granting and revoking admin rights. -- Alice✉ 09:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
(od) To be clear, this is not a comment on RsChen7754's ability to be a good admin. The general opinion seems to be that he will be a useful permanent addition to the admin corps and I respect that. However, it does seem to me that an admin, on any wiki, should have some minimal amount of content contributions in that wiki if they are to be given a position of responsibility and I don't see that in RSChen's case (actually, I don't see any substantive contributions at all). Every wiki is different (which is why we're not, all of us, admins everywhere else!) and, in my opinion, an editor should understand how that wiki works before becoming an admin. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make certain this is understood, the admin bits for Rschen7754 should actually have been flipped after two weeks, which is just prior to your comment, but since they weren't, per current policy a single objection is enough for a nomination to fail. Alice objected on grounds unrelated to the user, and as such that comment can be struck from consideration, but per our current policies your objection should cause this nomination to fail. If you feel strongly on the matter then that's fine, but I want to make sure that the objection wasn't made thinking that it was just registering a comment and would not affect the outcome. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a very good reason for discussions at nominations to have relatively strict guidelines regarding threads that in the end have nothing to do with an individuals nomination or suitability or capacity to be an admin. sats (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly dispute that a single objection is enough for a nomination to fail, especially one so opposed to precedent as this one. (And one so frankly bizarre, given that "RegentsPark" himself proposed that Rschen7754 be made a permanent admin.) Consensus is not unanimity. Furthermore, the addition to the above list that is being interpreted as some sort of travel writing requirement was added recently without discussion, and I sincerely doubt that there would be support for such a criterion, as some of our most valuable admins have had minimal work in that field. The fact that Rschen7754 is already a valuable admin, the objection, coming from a user who has been inactive for years following a pretty dismal history of interaction here, makes me even less likely to consider this an objection that should hold up a nomination. I'll start a discussion about this, anyway. --Peter Talk 15:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus isn't the threshold for approval according to current policy - per Wikivoyage:Administrators#Discussion a criteria for a successful nomination is that "there are no outstanding objections". Also, the "pretty dismal history of interaction here" is pretty harsh, particularly given that the user in question was given unanimous support during his/her admin nomination: Wikivoyage:Administrator_nominations/Archives#User:.28WT-en.29_Wandering-- Ryan • (talk) • 15:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was prior to the interactions I'm referring to. I would not support such a nomination today. I will also start a discussion recommending that we resolve admin nominations by consensus. --Peter Talk 16:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is straightforward. A wiki is primarily driven by its content contributors and understanding the needs of these content contributors is an essential part of the job of an admin. He or she cannot do that if they've never contributed content. Putting ad-hominem arguments to one side, it seems like a reasonable position to hold. We have a particularly free spirited wiki in wikivoyage (spend enough time on Wikipedia and you'll see what I mean) and that is partly because most editors here have a commitment to adding travel content. We should try and keep it that way. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Has been helpful and knowledgeable in all ways that are relevant for admins on Wikivoyage, and will be particularly useful as an admin since he can provide insights about tools and processes we may not be aware of based on his admin experience at Wikipedia. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Jjtk (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Peter says "Consensus is not unanimity." How is consensus different from unanimity? My impression is that this site functions a bit like the League of Nations, and may ultimately stop functioning, on the same basis the League of Nations stopped functioning - because a single objection ended any action. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've always taken "consensus" to be roughly equivalent to "a clear majority". Unanimity requires, as a condition of any final decision being made at all, that there be no outstanding objections. Consensus, as I've taken the concept to mean for us at Wikivoyage, merely implies that any objections have to be duly noted and accommodated to the greatest degree possible when crafting the final decision, even if the objecting minority isn't always completely placated in the end. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In practice consensus, as distinct from unanimity, has meant all but one agree ;) Our consensus policy also explains that simply objecting without providing a valid rationale doesn't count. Determining that a rationale is not valid requires looking at precedents, discussions, and policies. --Peter Talk 18:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's good to have content edits to demonstrate understanding of our policies, but I think it can also be shown through policy discussions and how touting, vandalism and other unwanted edits are handled. Based on what I've seen, I support Rschen being a permanent member of our janitorial team. -Shaundd (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a relief. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed an uptick in the amount of spam lately. As the northern hemisphere summer is approaching, doubtless a number of admins will be going on vacation and may have limited internet access or limited time to spend online. So I believe this is an opportune time to select more admins. There are a number of good candidates. I am proposing two below. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib was using a template, "Busy," which went through the Vfd process and was deleted. Yet he did not depart from the site in a huff, but instead, continued to work hard, never asking for anything in return. He has done so much outstanding work, for example in articles about Pakistan. You can see his contributions here: . I have checked with Saqib, and he is willing to serve as an admin and would like admin tools to help combat spam. I think he is a great user, a great person (I know him only through this site), and would be a great admin. What say you all? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support Pashley (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Does good work and can communicate. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Trusted candidate. curtaintoad | chat me! 11:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support for this tirelessly hardworking candidate. It's a bonus that he is able to bring fluency in languages other than English (eg:Punjabi and Urdu) to his tasks. -- Alice✉ 12:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support - A great candidate who will do much great work for this site. Giving Saqib the tools will only ensure the continued smooth running of Wikivoyage. James A ▪ talk 12:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I thought Saqib already was an admin. Ypsilon (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support sats (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support jan (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support DerFussi 15:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support --Andyrom75 (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. --Peter Talk 18:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - User is very helpful and knowledgeable. TCN7JM 22:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - A great Wikivoyager; I'm sure he'll do great things as an admin too. --Nick talk 22:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support --Alexander (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support --Rschen7754 20:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support JuliasTravels (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Danapit (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done by User:Peterfitzgerald. --Rschen7754 19:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to all those who participated in my request for adminship. I was surprised at the turnout and support I got and I am deeply humbled and honoured by your trust. --Saqib (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seligne is another outstanding user. She has done a large amount of great work on articles about Thailand and Cambodia, many of which before her arrival were either very thin on information, touty, or/and written in bad English. She has also maintained the articles by reverting spam, touting, and just plain poor writing whenever she's seen them. I believe Seligne would benefit from having admin tools that make it easier for her to revert spam and block spammers, and she has expressed willingness to serve if we make her an admin. You can see her contributions here: Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by User:Peterfitzgerald. --Rschen7754 19:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user was nominated before, see the long messy discussion at Wikivoyage:Administrator_nominations/Archives#User:SatuSuro. A major concern there was insufficient history of edits in WV main space. I think that is now resolved, see , so I am re-nominating him. Pashley (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by User:Peterfitzgerald. --Rschen7754 19:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since joining the project six months ago Nick has made an outstanding number of contributions, from the new Main Page design to the Wikivoyage:Tourist Office to the Wikivoyage Twitter account, and probably many more things that I'm overlooking. He's active, knowledgeable, and has indicated a willingness to wield the awesome power of the shiny buttons. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all very much for your very kind words - I'm honoured to be nominated. :) --Nick talk 16:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination successful, someone flip the bit please. --Saqib (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks from nomination is July 24. Please, have a bit of patience, and trust that a 'crat will tend to the bit-flipping in due course. If a couple of days have passed beyond the 14-day discussion period, then you can send a polite reminder message. LtPowers (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ops. I thought its 24th already. Really sorry. --Saqib (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it makes a difference, but where Saqib is, it is already July 24. Texugo (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Texugo, It is 12:30 AM right now here and my computer calendar showing July 25th so it was a mistake. I got confused. --Saqib (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Nomination successful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to nominate both Nick and Torty3. While someone else stole my fire above, I'll still get one in ;) I'm about to leave on a mini-travel, so to be brief, look at User talk:Torty3#Thank you for a few reasons why I think Torty is a fantastic contributor. I also think he (or she?) is trustworthy, and needs the buttons: Torty is our en lead for dynamic maps development, and needs to be able to edit protected MediaWiki pages regularly. I've been trying to make those changes upon request, but am usually hours late, which is a waste of Torty's time. --Peter Talk 22:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that I'm making too many requests on the admins :) I've been trying to keep it to a minimum, but it would undeniably be easier to make changes and also correct mistakes if given access, so I accept the nomination. I'm caught up in exploring technical aspects because of the dynamic maps right now, so I'll be comfortable helping out on both feature development and content in the future. -- torty3 (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the reasons so cogently stated by User:Peterfitzgerald. --W. Franke-mailtalk 09:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I truly want to support this RfA, as I'm pretty sure Torty3 would do fine with the tools but I think that the candidate should be more experienced with more edits. --Saqib (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]
    Torty3 has over 1000 edits on the English Wikivoyage. Is there a particular number you're looking for? Keep in mind that Torty3 would have more edits if Torty3 didn't have to ask admins to perform certain tasks. LtPowers (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Torty3's qualifications per Wikivoyage:Administrators#Becoming an administrator, the only guideline that does not clearly apply to him/her is "a track record of at least a few months". Torty3's first contribution to Wikivoyage is datestamped April 18th, 2013 January 20th, 2013; careless mistake on my part. While it's not unreasonable to describe that length of time as "a few months" (depending on how "a few" is defined), it's true that his/her contribution history is of a somewhat shorter duration than the usual nominee for administrator. But look at the diversity of those contributions. They span every facet of Wikivoyage, from policy discussions like this one, to minor grammatical fixes, to template work, to addition of content to articles. I think it goes without saying that the best way to familiarize oneself with Wikikvoyage is to put one's fingers in as many pies as possible, and Torty3 is easily one of our most well-rounded contributors. Add that to the fact that s/he is uncommonly skilled and enthusiastic about contributing to the behind-the-scenes technical work that keeps the site up and running, which goes over the heads of even many seasoned Wikivoyagers - certainly over my head - and that, in fact, his or her nomination springs from a need to engage in that type of work in a less encumbered fashion, and it becomes clear that the shortness of Torty3's tenure as a Wikivoyager thus far is of marginal importance. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Saqib's original concerns were valid, and I considered it carefully even before accepting this (somewhat sudden) nomination. But as Andre put it very kindly, I've explored many different bits of Wikivoyage, out of necessity for the expedition and out of curiosity, and I feel that I have a pretty good working knowledge of the site to help improve it further. I would like to start back on content soon, but dynamic maps are also fairly important to me and there is only so much time. -- torty3 (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. User has a six month edit history and around a thousand contributions, has been involved in policy discussions, and has a demonstrated need for admin rights per Peter. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ticks all the boxes and can make good use of the tools. An edit count only says so much anyway; quality matters more than quantity. Keep up the good work, Torty. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Torty has been doing great work, and really could use the buttons! His/her contributions on the technical field are very valuable to the project. Globe-trotter (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a great user who has made some excellent contributions to the site. I'm sure Torty would make a brilliant admin. --Nick talk 03:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support AHeneen (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the reasons stated above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I am impressed by Torty's work, and I am sure he will make good use of admin privileges. --Alexander (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - Torty3 has been very helpful and industrious and will undoubtedly use the tools responsibly. Texugo (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 07:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The community given support to Torty's nomination so lets give him the admin privileges and close this nomination. --Saqib (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Nomination successful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danapit has been with us for six months, and right from the start has been jumping in with cleanup and administrative tasks, as well as cogently and eloquently contributing to policy discussions... exactly the sort of person we need on the administrative team. I think it's time for some more responsibility. What say you? LtPowers (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am honoured ;) --Danapit (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Danapit is one of the most outstanding users here. If she is willing to accept this nomination and pick up a mop, I certainly would support her in that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to clarify my earlier equivocal statement of support and this I am happy to do:
  • Support with the only slight reservation that she does not seem to have made a distinction between Tony's critical (and admittedly acerbic) analysis of faults in processes and cultures here and actually being abusive to individual editors when commenting on Tony's proposed 3 day ban. Ideally, I'd prefer to promote admins that are able to analyse and apply our current written policies and not move any further down the road of censorship of comments (that are not abusive, profane, blasphemous or libellous or contrary to other specific policies) in WV or User namespaces. I have seen some religious Wikis that seem to be able to function with heavy censorship and a complete lack of humour, but they're the exception. --W. Frankemailtalk 20:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the reservation that she does not seem to have made a distinction between Tony's critical (and admittedly acerbic) analysis of faults in processes and cultures here and actually being abusive to individual editors when commenting on Tony's proposed 3 day ban. Ideally, I'd prefer to promote admins that are able to analyse and apply our current written policies and not move any further down the road of censorship of comments (that are not abusive, profane, blasphemous or libellous or contrary to other specific policies) in WV or User namespaces. If she genuinely thought that Tony was a troll rather than the erudite, perceptive and concerned reformist Wikipedian he claimed to be, then his non-article namespace edits could simply have been ignored. I have seen some religious Wikis that seem to be able to function with heavy censorship and a complete lack of humour, but they're the exception. --W. Frankemailtalk 14:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 07:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Friendly and clearly a great contributor to the site. PerryPlanet (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Result: Confirmed as Administrator LtPowers (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JuliasTravels is an experienced user and I was surprised to learn she was not an admin yet. She contributes to discussions in focused, logical and constructive way and I am sure she would be a very good admin. As JuliasTravels is now working hard on recreation of skeleton articles, delete button would be a useful tool for her.

Thanks for the confidence and nomination, Danapit :) The job of admin never sounded all that attractive to me, to be honest, as I'm not a particular fan of mopping in daily life ;-) However, a delete button would indeed be handy now and I would also be glad to participate in RC patrol again, something I used to do until that utility was turned off for non-admins. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination successful, someone flip the bit please. --Saqib (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Nomination successful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:User_rights_nominations/Archives/2013&oldid=4917990"