W. Frank contributed way back in 2007, then took time off, and recently began contributing content and policy in August 2012. He is eager to patrol and should be given the tools to do so as effectively as possible. If he is interested, he may also be made an admin on WT:de?--IBobitalkemail 21:08, 17 September 2012 (EDT)
One oppose vote has been removed quietly (see the revision history). Nevertheless, I would like to voice another oppose. Frank may be a good contributor, but he needs a longer track of edits and a sound proof that he understands Wikitravel policies, which recently became anything but coherent. Himera 03:37, 18 September 2012 (EDT)
* Not Yet Agree with Himera. A great contributor, and (if they are willing) will make a good administrator down the track. --Inas 15:43, 18 September 2012 (EDT)
I see your points, folks. But keep in mind, especially if you are not currently patrolling/contributing: there are relatively few admins doing that at this time. If a new admin needs a slightly steeper learning curve, we can deal with that. Nobody has to be a top expert right out of the gate. Traditionally you're right. At the moment, it would be very helpful to have another set of eyes on changes. These are interesting times!--IBobitalkemail 16:08, 18 September 2012 (EDT)
Clarifications:1) Although my first recorded edit on Wikitravel (while logged on as User:W._Frank) was on 11 January 2007, like many, I had contributed here "anonymously" (IP address logged) well before then.
On 15 September 2007, after some 9 months of recorded contributions here as User:W._Frank, I stopped logging on before making edits.
This was because
a) my user name is directly related to my real life name and
b) my employment prohibited directly attributable public expressions of opinion in any media.
However, I did continue to make more than 7000 edits "anonymously" (IP address logged) on a large variety of articles in the intervening 5 years until my "real life" retirement meant that I could at last resume editing using my W. Frank user name logon on 19 August 2012. 2) Until the last couple of months or so, I thought I had a reasonable understanding of Wikitravel policies - not least because many of them had been patiently established and developed (largely by community discussion and consensus) over the more than 6 years that I have been editing here on Wikitravel!
Now, I do not think anyone is 100% clear as to what policies exactly currently take priority. If I am approved, I will encourage the site owners to clarify and crystallise what community policies have been suspended (and for what period), which have been dropped entirely, and what (if any) is the procedure that the site owners wish for discussing policy amendment or restoration. 3) In the western tradition (following the time of Sir Thomas More) it has become increasingly abhorrent to apply sanctions retrospectively for transgressions of rules that were either not clear at the time of the alleged breach or had not yet been promulgated.
Consequently, until the current site owners have clarified and crystallised their current site policies, if approved I have no intention of either blocking (or unblocking) IP addresses or specific users. 4) If it does not sound too trite and formulaic, for me the Traveller comes first.
Due to the sterling and collaborative work of many hundreds of contributors over the years, Wikitravel is currently the most popular and authoritative on-line Travel Guide in the English language.
If our travel pages become corrupted by nutters and japesters, the Traveller directly suffers. Schoolboy vandalism and toilet humour (although it directly weakens the credibility and, therefore, the monetisation of this site for its owners) can at least be ignored when planning a trip. By contrast and by way of specific example, if some Great Russian nationalist succeeds in changing our articles on the Ukraine or Transnistria so that they appear to a Brazilian Canadian traveller contemplating a trip to either that both territories are an integral part of the Russian Federation, that poor traveller may waste both considerable time, money and effort in acquiring a completely unnecessary Russian visa.
Melodramatically, if some twerp thinks it is a huge jape to change "it is only safe to wade across Awaroa inlet within 1 hour either side of low tide" to "the ford across Awaroa inlet is very shallow and may be safely crossed by cyclists whatever the tide state" and that wicked change is not quickly spotted and reverted some poor traveller may drown. 5) Rightly or wrongly, employees of Internet Brands have made it crystal clear by both word and deed that for them this is neither the time nor place to discuss why, but to me at least it seems clear that janitorial activity by community selected administrators has rapidly diminished over the last couple of months or so.
That diminution means that, from my perspective and agenda of putting the traveller first, only two three short-term measures are indicated for Wikitravel: Either a lock down of all articles (other than in user namespace) from editing by either IP addresses or account holders of less than 3 months seniority Or for Internet Brands to hire more paid staff (such as User:IBcash) to do the mundane janatorial tasks that were previously done by a much larger and more active corps of volunteer Administrators Or strenuously encouraging existing community approved admins plus a new corps of volunteer janitors to actively patrol changes. 6) If Internet Brands opts for the latter and while the "email-a-user" facility is disabled, user talk pages become even more important for collaborative communication.
Before I would accept any further janitorial duties or privileges I need an immediate clarification by the site owners on whether it will be in order in future for anyone (including bureaucrats), other than the relevant user, to delete or modify statements that are not their own work in user namespace. 7) I'm afraid I shall not have the time to contribute anything at all on versions other than en 8) Lastly I am encouraged by the ancien regime admin policy statement that: "The decision to give these privileges to certain users is pragmatic." --W. Franke-mailtalk 19:05, 18 September 2012 (EDT)
Thanks for the clarifications, I didn't realise the contribution history and reasoning! Regarding point (6), Obviously we have policies for removing spam from user pages. But are you are saying that you would like IB to stop removing discussions between users on their userpages, and to stop using the oveationsrsight facility to remove the record of them having done so and what they removed?
Or are you just asking IB to update the policn sympathise somey to say when they will remove/oversight these communications? --Inas 21:11, 18 September 2012 (EDT)
I would be inclined to support this nomination but cannot because some of the discussion has been removed and I'm not about to vote based on incomplete information.
That stance seems wise and I sympathise with your quandary, Pashley.
Unfortunately the removed contributions were made (and oversighted) before I could respond to them and I have an incomplete set of screendumps. However, my recollection of the gist of the oversighted contributions was that they were concerned more with overall policy rather than any malfeasance on my part. I shall email the oversighted contributor now and ask him if this summation by me is fair and strike this summation through if he emails me back to say my summation is unfair. --W. Franke-mailtalk 21:49, 19 September 2012 (BST)
Moreover, IBobi seems to be maintaining his outrageous policy of removing evidence of his talk page & other depradations. I understand the difficult situation he is in, and even sympathise somewhat, but I cannot stomach that. Pashley 23:57, 18 September 2012 (EDT)
I fail to see what one thing has to do with the other? And: this is a discussion, and page, regarding the nomination of admins. There aren't going to be any preconditions put upon such matters, either. If a user is nominated, supported, and wishes to admin the site, they'll be elevated. If not, they won't. But such actions should not be held up by a user making demands, or by existing admins trying to leverage their personal grievances by holding something against a member nominated in good faith. Up or down vote, on the user's merits. That's all.--IBobitalkemail 03:09, 19 September 2012 (EDT)
I think Pashley's point was that you removed an edit to this page, and obscured the edit history to hide who it was, and what they said. I'm not sure if it was relevant or not, I can't see what it was. And as to my previous question to the nominee, it appears the point is moot. --Inas 05:18, 19 September 2012 (EDT)
Yes, that was exactly my point. Deleting talk page discussions is bad enough, though in some cases I can understand the reasons for it. Hiding the deletions via "oversight" powers is unconscionable. Pashley 22:08, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
Re point 4) Brazilians don't need a visa for Russia or Ukraine but they do for Moldova.Travelpleb 18:43, 26 September 2012 (EDT)
I've changed my example's nationality. He's now Canadian. --W. Franke-mailtalk 19:08, 26 September 2012 (EDT)
Support Seems the only one that is still interested. Jc8136 03:13, 3 October 2012 (EDT)
Support I'm convinced by the arguments of Jc8136 in general. Of the specific list of requirements, I'll leave this to IB to decide if this is acceptable. --Inas 09:30, 3 October 2012 (EDT)