|Please do not post any new comments on this page.|
This is a discussion archive collecting requests for restricted access by J.Steinbock.
See current discussion or the archives index.
2005-11 admin (failed)
- I realize that my edits are few, but I have faithfully served Wikipedia in the past and I believe that I could handle the additional responsibility of an administrator. Positive edits that I have already performed on Wikisource include the creation of The Librarian Project, the reverting of vandalism, and the aiding of new users. -- J.Steinbock (Discussion Page)
- Neutral for now - I suggest that you get further involved here for a little longer time, even though we do not have definite standards for candidates yet.
- Against – Simply for the reason that you have not got what I consider a sufficient edit count. Kate's Tools reports you have only 150 edits and have only been around for a few days. Come back in three months with 1000+ across the different namespaces and I will be more inclined ;) It's nothing personal, it's just that we tend to give Admin status to those who show a few months commitment minimum. GregRobson 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not yet. In a couple months (and after many more edits) I won't have a problem supporting your admin request. It's just too early right now.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Against - at this time Again nothing personal its just you've only been around for a few days & while you do have a number of edits these are mostly all 'welcome to wikipedia' type edits on userpages, (I see this is the case with your wikipedia edits too) rather than actual involvement in wikisource issues, problems & source documents. I'd wait till tou've built up a reputation (positive I'm sure) & either someone will ask you to stand or you can propose yourself then. AllanHainey 13:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not Yet. As with everyone else, I feel you should leave it a little while. Continue as you have begun and you will make it. The fine welcome template is a good start. Get involved with working on texts. Its nothing personal. You have a good point about BirgitteSB and you deserve an answer. The reason why I nominated her was that the edits she has done have shown a high degree of technical competence particularly over Wikification, and she has also made reasoned and highly argued comments in places like Scriptorium. Together these made me think she would be an ideal admin. In other words its not the numbers of edits you make, but the quality of what you do. Kind regards. Apwoolrich 14:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- I suggest you get a bit more familiar with the website and add some new texts. Then I'm sure you'll get full support. Dovi 18:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with all of your arguments. I ran for adminship with my past experience on other Wikipedia websites in mind as opposed to my current Wikisource edit count. However, I do understand what all of you are saying. -- J.Steinbock
- Yes, you're right. The main difference, though, is that Birgitte helped us develop the wikification practice here at Wikisource (and if you analyze her contributions, you'll see that she spent quite some time doing the arduous task of research and wikification for a few of Kipling's poems). I apologize if this has led to some confusion. Maybe Wikisource needs to create a set of guidelines for nominations/request for adminship to clear up any possible confusion?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you all for voting. I greatly appreciate your input. I have realized my fault in running, and this I say so that I may improve, not to be negative. I have noticed that many of you have issued the statement 'nothing personal.' I have found no offense in your dissapproval. In fact, I agree with many of your wise statements. I will be sure to run when the time is right.
P.S. I placed this note in bold to emphasize its importance on the issue.