Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Archive 2

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Contents 1 Requests for adminship 1.1 Mfinney ( talk | email | contribs ) 1.2 German Men92 ( talk | email | contribs ) 1.3 Whoops i lost my account! 1.4 Hagindaz ( talk | email | contribs ) 1.5 Think Fast ( talk | email | contribs ) 1.6 Withinfocus ( talk | email | contribs ) 1.7 SBJohnny ( talk | email | contribs ) 2 Nominations for adminship 2.1 Dragontamer ( talk | email | contribs ) 2.2 RobinH ( talk | email | contribs ) 3 Requests for de-adminship 3.1 Karen Johnson ( talk | email | contribs ) 3.2 Lord Emsworth ( talk | email | contribs ) 3.3 Reytan ( talk | email | contribs ) 3.4 Marshman ( talk | email | contribs ) 3.5 Andreas Ipp ( talk | email | contribs ) 3.6 Maveric149 ( talk | email | contribs ) 3.7 Eclecticology ( talk | email | contribs ) 3.8 Perl ( talk | email | contribs ) 3.9 Traroth ( talk | email | contribs ) 3.10 Cyp ( talk | email | contribs ) 3.11 Andreas Ipp (talk | email | contribs | logs) 3.12 Cyp (talk | email | contribs | logs) 3.13 Eclecticology (talk | email | contribs | logs) 3.14 Frazzydee (talk | email | contribs | logs) 3.15 Furrykef (talk | email | contribs | logs) 3.16 Geocachernemesis (talk | email | contribs | logs) 3.17 Maveric149 (talk | email | contribs | logs) 3.18 Omegatron (talk | email | contribs | logs) 3.19 Perl (talk | email | contribs | logs) 3.20 Reytan (talk | email | contribs | logs) 3.21 The bellman (talk | email | contribs | logs) 3.22 ThomasStrohmann (talk | email | contribs | logs) 3.23 Traroth (talk | email | contribs | logs) 3.24 Yann (talk | email | contribs | logs) 4 Requests for bureaucratship 4.1 Whiteknight ( talk | email | contribs ) 5 Requests for CheckUser rights 5.1 Derbeth ( talk | email | contribs ) 5.2 Jguk ( talk | email | contribs ) 5.3 Whiteknight ( talk | email | contribs ) 5.4 Wur-dene ( talk | email | contribs )

[edit] Requests for adminship

[edit] Mfinney ( talk | email | contribs )

In the time I have been involved with Wikibooks (primarily through the Wikiversity project), and have been very active in participation. As the school I developed (Wikiversity:School of Fire and Emergency Management) continues to grow, it would be helpful if I were able to access more rights to help the newcomers I am recruiting. I hope you will consider so that I can be a greater asset to the school and to Wikimedia as a whole. Thank you for your consideration.

Discussion

Can you explain how sysop tools will be useful for you? --Derbeth ^talk 15:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I have seen so far, I know such things as orphaned pages and so forth,(where an individual has made a mistake and so forth) could be fixed a lot faster. As individuals are first using the site, they tend to make a lot of mistakes (I can speak personally for this.) While we intend for people to use the Sandbox, that does not always occur. With my background, I could pick up on issues related to content fairly quickly. As well, I work with the site on a regular basis now, so I could be a good resource in this area.My commitment to wanting to see the Wikiversity and Wikibooks be a clean site that is useful to people and a commitment to working long term on these projects could be an asset.--Mfinney 16:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But you are only editing pages connected to your books. Orphaned pages are no problem - you just insert {{delete}} and the page is deleted. --Derbeth ^talk 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Votes

• Oppose - I looked over your edits and only saw content page edits. You have been here for two months or so and have a large number of edits, but those edits are 99.99% on your own book projects. Administrators have responsibilities to help with managing the entire site, not just personal projects. I think you can easily manage with normal abilities. Your large amount of edits (and about 4.2 per page) show that you're only interested in working on your own projects. -Matt 23:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the opportunity, I would rise to the task. I really have benefited from the Wikibooks project and feel its my responsibility to take a bigger commitment. I would like to put back into the Wikibooks project, since I have recieved. I would consider it a privilege to work on the entire site.--Mfinney 01:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I too still oppose this adminship. Derbeth covered most of it, but a lot more time needs to be spent in other areas besides a single book. I don't see a need for this user having the rights now. If he did more than just work on a book, then I would reconsider. As of now, no significant effort has been made. -Matt 23:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sysop rights are neither a privilege nor an honour. It purely maintenance function, given people doing cleanup work - not people who do most of work or the best work. Looking at your contributions, I see you are a good book author (even though you have some problems with naming policy), but not an active vandalism spotter. --Derbeth ^talk 02:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  I was thinking about changing my vote, but when browsed through Mfinney's edits, I can't find a good reason for that. Yes, he is a very good contributor, but only for his book. I would support user who is active on several books or a group of books (like Wikiversity), but Mfinney is concentrated strictly on his book. When it comes to helping newcomers - anyone can do it, you don't need special privileges. I also think that Mfinney is able to manage his book with his current permissions. We certainly need users like Mfinney but I'm not convinced we should give sysop right to everyone who just wrote a good book and wants to have greater control over it. --Derbeth ^talk 21:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I would like to support this request for adminship, but I do not know what to expect from this user. To Mfinney: start working on some pan-Wikibooks tasks, such as participating in Category:Wikibooks maintenance or Wikibooks:Votes for deletion. You do not need adminship to start. Please do help with these tasks! --Kernigh 06:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks Kernigh! Actually all I want to do is help out more. So I will do that. I keep seeing on the different talk pages that we need more sysops to help out. My thoughts were... I'm utilizing the servers and software... I should do my part in maintenance as well. I will take your advice. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. --Mfinney 15:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Support I decided to change my vote. I prefer to support users who occasionally revert vandalism or mark pages for deletion, which is why I initially opposed. However, User:Mfinney is a very active user, thus I want to let this user view deleted pages and delete redirects, like I recently did for the RuneScape book. Also, other users who voted after me gave good reasons to support this user. --Kernigh 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support An active user, would be nice if xhe could preforom more "maintenance" edits --Cspurrier 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As a user with a good edit history, you have displayed your trustworthyness to the community. I don't think that an admin needs to be a vandal-fighting superman, but you definately should try to become more familiar with policy such as the votes for deletion/undeletion pages, the clean up, and maybe even familiarize yourself with the vandalism in progress page. You are trustworthy, you are a frequent editor, and you have a sincere desire to help out. I can't think of any other qualifications you would need. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 21:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You say this person should become more familiar with policy, but I see it as simply looking at policy. This user has never made an edit outside of his own book projects. I don't understand how this user has trust when all he has done is edit book pages. The user even said himself that he wants admin abilities to help with editing book pages, which sounds to me like he's still only interested in staying with only his projects. I'm not saying that he is hopeless, not at all, but he could definitely go somewhere with all these tips and come back later. I think his current progress is grounds for a strong oppose. -Matt 22:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What are the qualifications for being an admin, exactly? this user expresses a strong desire to contribute to the wikibooks project (even if he has a narrow scope), he has a good edit history, and so long as he does not abuse admin powers while sheparding his pet projects, I can see no reason to deny him adminship. Also, with the new infrastructure in place to "de-op" inactive sysadmins, I think it is prudent on our part to give eager members with a sincere desire to help an opportunity to do so. You want to strongly oppose this nomination simply because he doesnt go to the VFD discussions? I think that's short sighted on your part. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 14:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There are many qualities I think an admin should have. In the case of this user, I think an admin should be versatile. This user is very dedicated to only one thing: his projects. His level of dedication is great, but I don't think he needs sysop tools to continue what he's doing. When did I mention VfD discussions? I think you may have shortsighted me, because what I was referring to is any sort of discussion with the Wikibooks community. How do we know this user understands deletion policy, what vandals are capable of, how pages should be named, etc? I don't think I'd be able to trust his administrative actions as of now because I believe there's a chance he may use them improperly. It basically comes down to experience and practice in areas outside of a single or few book projects. -Matt 00:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it 100 times more: I would rather have more contributers and administrators willing to make a big difference on a single wikibook, then have thousands of contributers and administrators who only clean up vandalism. If we don't have people writing new books, taking on new pet projects, and moving certain wikibooks to the forefront, then we as a community have nothing. If this user has a sincere desire to help out the project by utilizing his knowledge and writing abilities to benefit only a single book or bookshelf, then more power to him. He might not know all the facets and nuances of wikibooks policy, but if he has a pet project that he cares about strongly, and is willing to put significant time and effort into, then i can't imagine that he would use administrative powers improperly to the point that they damage that project. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 22:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support While this user may not be agreesive in the discussion forums with Wikibooks, he has been incredibly active within Wikiversity. If/when Wikiversity becomes an independent project, I hope that he becomes one of the first admins there as a definite help to that project. Also, we are trying to deterime trustworthyness to keep the mission of Wikibooks, not to raise the bar so high to become a new administrator that you have to be a hard-core veteran Wikibooks user. Of course, other users are welcome to their own opinion on what standards they think there should be to become an admin. --Rob Horning 16:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Whiteknight and Rob Horning, Jguk 10:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Active in Wikiversity. I'm surprised he isn't an admin already. --Dragontamer 17:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Plus it should be no big deal, and Mfinney seems like a decent enough editor. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Archived by jguk on 2 June 2006 after no movement in this nomination since 17 April.

[edit] German Men92 ( talk | email | contribs )

Since I have been at Wikibooks I have helped many language books grow, and not just German, even though it is my strong point. I have helped the Russian, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, French, Greek, Dutch, and Wikijuniors' Language Wikibooks. Whenever I see or notice vandalism, I always revert it. I believe I am very trustworthy. It might seem I'm one-minded (I only edit language books), but that is one of my strongest points, and something I'm interested in. I have very much experice with wiki, near 1,000 edits in Wikibook and 600 edits in Wikipedia. I'm also good with creating layouts or new website designs. Even though I've had some trouble with images, I have learned my problems and now, for the most part, only use images from Wikicommons. Thank for your votes, good or bad.

Discussion

• I've looked over German Men92's contribs pretty closely, comparing dozens of diffs. They're highly concentrated in the German Wikibook and the German entry for Wikijunior Languages, with a few light edits to other pages, mostly their cover pages.
  
  Regarding his interest in admin-type tasks thus far, I counted only two vandalism reverts, no vandalism in progress reportings, no VfD, not much discussion of Wikibooks policies. I disagree with his choice to make new and graphically intensive cover pages rather than linking directly to Contents pages, but to his credit his edits have been very consistent since his first one in December. I'm holding off voting for now, but wanted to add to the discussion.
  
  -- Everlong 01:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  My guess is that German Men92 would revert more vandalism if other users like myself did not catch it quicker. --Kernigh 04:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  Talking about that, I think the IRC channel should get a little more publicity. It is kinda hard for me to find it at times... (yeah, I should bookmark it or something but I dunno much IRC) --Dragontamer 17:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want administrative tools? It's great that you are enthusiastic about writing content, but I don't see that you're hindered by not having the tools. You've only made a handful of revisions and you can make those with three mouse-clicks anyway. Do you even need any of the other tools? You've only mentioned revisions and that can be done easily without the tools. I would support this if I saw that you were trying to help and were being held back or limited in any way, but you're essentially not doing anything now besides write content. This sort of looks like a trophy for an active editor. -Matt 01:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I want administrative tools, becuase I can help wikibooks grow and become more popular. I've restained from really helping, becuase the errors and things that notice, that I could help with sysop rights. And I also even't reverted many pages with vandalism, becuase I only see little times. Even thought I'm not going to stop expanding German, I'm getting tired of it, and now I want to help Wikibooks itself, not just the books in it. --German Men92 20:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your eagerness, but I think that every candidate should pass a "tryout" period first, when he or she does the same tasks as normal administrator. You don't need to have specials permissios to do most of things mentioned in Wikibooks:Wikibooks maintenance (you don't neccessarily have to fight vandalism) and discuss some project-wide issues. Also, if you could show cases when you helped organising a book (for example, by taking part in discussion about a book), this would be a plus for you. It's easier to support somebody's request if you know how this person acts not only as a book author, but also as a "manager" and "cleaner". I think you made this request a bit too early. --Derbeth ^talk 20:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been a week, and now I'm just waiting for Derbeth to make it 100% offical now. --German Men92 00:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Votes

• Support Having reviewed German Men92's contributions, he looks like a trustworthy Wikibookian, I'm sure he'll use the mop sensibly, Jguk 22:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Jguk, --Kernigh 04:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support We can always use some additional help with administrator tasks. Accepting the administrator privileges does not require an obligation of using them all of the time, and often you can deal with vandalism just in the course of looking at your watch list or whatever page you happen to be editing at the time. Adminship is not supposed to be that big of a deal, and mainly if you can be trusted not to abuse the extra options like page deletion or abusing protected pages, helping out on occasion as time permits. Participation in policy pages is not a prerequisite. --Rob Horning 16:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Same reasons as Robert, except imagine that I said it better than he did :-) --Dragontamer 17:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Everlong 05:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral German Men92 has done a wonderful job in German book, but I think it's time to get a bit more interested in community issues when you are requesting for adminship. I don't see any activity of German Men92 in Wikibooks: namespace, except BOTM vote. I'm not sure if he knows our policies well and he still has problems with images licenses. --Derbeth ^talk 16:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support He wants to help, he has nothing bad on his record...I can't really think of any other qualification that is needed. His scope might be a little myopic, but I would rather have administrators and contributers who make a big difference on a small project, then make an almost unnoticable difference across the whole project. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 22:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - His response to my question above pretty much locked it for me. If he were actually hindered this may be acceptable but he doesn't have a need for the tools right now. He should come back later once he's actually tried the long way and would like to be more efficient. -Matt 14:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Made sysop --Derbeth ^talk 20:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whoops i lost my account!

I've not been on wikibooks for a while and I think that possibly my account has been disabled. I can't log in, and emailing for a new password doesn't seem to work either. I've had this new account (note the capitalisation). The problem is however my admin privaledges. I run a computer club here at my school and starting on wednesday intend to get the kids to edit a new wikijuniour book of science experiments that can be done at home. The problem is that this school is on a huge shared network that regulaly gets blocked from Wikipedia because of vandals from other schools. I need to be able to unblock the network so that my (lovely, well behaved) pupils can edit (and reblock when we have finished if necessary). I also need to be able to delete pages created in error (my pupils are only 11, I expect a lot of errors). Are there any stewards here? Can someone give me admin powers on this account or reactivate the password on my other account? Theresa Knott 10:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back. We don't have stewards here (they're on meta), but I'm sure User:Derbeth (our only active bureaucrat at the moment) would be willing to give your new account sysop rights upon his being able to confirm that you are indeed the same Theresa Knott as before. I'd also propose that, assuming your old account really can't be reactivated, that we do ask a steward on meta to remove the sysop rights to it (in case someone untoward does find a way of accessing it). Alternatively, you could ask a steward at meta if they can help you - I guess the problem is the newly installed "email confirmation" system has beaten you here - you can't remember the password to get into the account, and you can't receive an email of it until you've confirmed your email address, and you can't confirm your email address until you log in (with your password) and ask for a confirmation email! Catch-22! Jguk 18:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocks at Wikipedia do not affect Wikibooks, so I added a comment to User talk:Theresa Knott in case there was confusion. --Kernigh 19:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a bug in MediaWiki software. I sent e-mail to Theresa, I will be online for a few more hours so I think there would be no problem with making Theresa sysop before Wednesday. --Derbeth ^talk 19:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks it's all sorted out now. Theresa knott 14:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hagindaz ( talk | email | contribs )

I'm a relatively new user, joining in April I believe. I strongly believe in what Wikibooks is trying to achieve and feel contributing here is one of the best uses of my time, so I try to spend as much of my free time as I can helping Wikibooks. Automatics reversion and other powers would help me out a bit and save some time. --hagindaz 08:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Votes

• Support Hagindaz has been busy doing lots and lots of administrative work on Wikibooks since he came here. It would be useful if he had the full range of administrative tools, Jguk 12:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Hagindaz has helped me out so much here, and been very informative about policies. He is friendly, knows the rules, and helps new users. I was going to nominate him, but since I was new I didn't know if people would take me seriously. -writerhawk 00:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. You have an impressive few months under your belt, and I sincerely hope that you don't burn yourself out, trying to do as much as you do, and at the same time adding in additional responsibilities. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 00:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Kernigh 17:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support DettoAltrimenti 21:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support I was going to nominate Hagindaz for an admin, he certainly does a good job here. We need such people here. --Derbeth ^talk 21:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - very active user who has been a significant contributor to this project. We certainly can use people of this calibur to be helping us out in a larger role, and passes in my book the basic requirements for achieving this sort of responsibility. More admins also mean more people to keep the rest of us in check. --Rob Horning 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Finally, I was waiting for this to happen. --Je suis 00:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hagindaz has now been given sysop rights

[edit] Think Fast ( talk | email | contribs )

I would like to become an admin for the purpose of doing work on books themselves in a more efficient way. Currently I am working on the Spanish Wikibook. The main task I am performing is moving pages so that naming is consistent and logical. Redirects remain even though they serve no purpose. I would rather be able to delete these pages than to have to request this from some other admin who must be notified, review the history, make a decision, and carry out the action.

I admit that I do not have as many edits (I have provided a table below) as are probably necessary to become an admin without opposition. However, this is in part due to the fact that my edits are spread out among six projects. (If you look at my total edits, you will see that I actually have over 1300 total edits.)

Wikibooks - 312

Wikipedia - 637

Wikisource - 163

Wiktionary - 240

Spanish Wikipedia - 12

Spanish Wikibooks - 19

Total - 1383

I hope that you will support my request. --Think Fast 18:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I am leaving for a week and will not be able to answer any questions. Feel free to leave any questions on my talk page. I will get to them when I get back. --Think Fast 20:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I am leaving for a week and a half. --Think Fast 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Votes

• Oppose Really small number of edits, I don't belive given reason is sufficent for granting sysop rights. Anyone can insert {{delete}} to mark page useless. --Derbeth ^talk 21:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This is for Wikibooks a very small number of edits, and we aren't that desperate for new admins at the moment. In contrast to the User:Hagindaz request, you havn't really been active outside of the couple of Wikibooks you have participated in, and are not able to demonstrate that you have an understanding of the current policies, nor any opinion on the future of Wikibooks. With a few exceptions, the admins here have been pretty good about clearing out the speedy deletion category. Besides, even with the deletion ability as an admin, I still try to use the {{delete}} tag myself just to get a second opinion on most pages I feel need to be removed. Your nomination suggests you might be killing pages that shouldn't be removed, if only from inexperience. --Rob Horning 17:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I know you mean well, but your contribution history shows that not only do you have a relatively small number of edits, but you also only seem to edit 1 or two days each month. If you are going to only be contributing 2 days each month, it's hard to justify your need for additional resources and responsibilities. Such spurious editing hardly makes me confidant that you will be productive or reliable in the future. If you need a page deleted, mark it with {{delete}}. If you see vandalism, clean it up and report it at WB:VIP. If you become a more active user here for a good period of time, I will change my vote. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 17:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just like Derbeth said. Very new to the project and by what you described you can handle things without admin tools. -Matt 21:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User removed request. -Matt 14:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withinfocus ( talk | email | contribs )

I've been active around Wikibooks for almost a full year, and think I can add a lot to the site with administrative tools. I manage a rapidly-expanding book here, the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter, and perform a lot of cleanup for the many pages within the book. I patrol RC from time to time and would appreciate the revert and delete tools. I think I know a lot about policy here, interacting with many users around Wikibooks, and would be a help with getting more books on Wikibooks to conform to them. Thanks! -Matt, 1 July 2006

Discussion

Votes

• Support. I know that there is going to be some apprehension stemming from the fact that you stick mostly to your own pet project, but that's something that I can wholeheartedly understand. You have a good contribution history, and you are definately active in matters of policy and vandalism. People who are good, established editors, who are active and who mean well should definately be given the privledges if they so desire. I think that you fit all the qualifications, and so you have my vote. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 22:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Cspurrier 16:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Seems to have a firm grasp of Wikibooks policies and has been a very active Wikibooks user. The Muggle's Guide seems to be almost a full Wikimedia project unto itself that perhaps needs its own admin just to patrol that content :)? --Rob Horning 12:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Could have sworn you were an admin already. Understands policy, which is the important tidbit.--Dragontamer 18:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Congratulations, you are now a sysop. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SBJohnny ( talk | email | contribs )

I've been around since February this year, occaisionally working on a garden book, which I plan to get back to after I'm not so tired from actually growing gardens (I have lots of notes, of course). I'd like the key to the toolshed to help clear some of the backlogs with speedy-deletes, etc., and for use in new page patrolling. I'm actually more of a veteran on WP than I am here, and am active there in the spam, vandalism, categorisation, and RfC-responder clubs. However, I'm one of the more conservative members, as I'm a very firm believer in consensus and assuming good faith. My hope is to bring some of the useful things I've learned from my WP experiences, while helping steer things away from the counter-productive aspects of WP culture.

One thing I like about WP is the RFA structure, So I'm copy-pasting it over here so we can give it a spin. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikibooks in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?

A: Cleanup chores, mostly, such as looking through speedy deletes, closing VfDs (they tend to stay open a very long time, and while I don't really need sysop tools to close them when there's obviously no consensus, it seems good practice to leave that to admins), etc.

Fortunately, we don't have a big problem yet with serious vandalism, but I enjoy vandal-fighting (I know that sounds strange, but it's true), and know when it's time to block. While not wanting to make a solution looking for a problem, I'm hoping to import the "test" tags from WP to here, as soon as the voting/consensus rules are decided upon (seems more radical than bold to just start bringing them in without prior discussion). I'd also like to propose a rule for protecting redirect pages, since these don't really need editing, and are frequently the targets of vandalism on WP.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikibooks, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: All of my writing here is very much in the slow-growth mode, as I'm suffering a bit of writer's block these days. Lately I've been working on recategorising and cleaning up the How-tos category tree, and am working on a proposal for standardising categorys incorporating the lessons I'm learning through that process.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Once, at WP. I resolved it using the Dispute Resolution methods (w:WP:DR), which was stressful and time consuming, but got plenty of others involved which allowed me to step back from it. The same user is now having the same edit wars with some other users, but I've "recused myself" from the current conflict. Setting up a rigorous dispute resolution system here is another thing I'd like to see come about, though I doubt edit-warring will ever become as common here on wikibooks.

(Add questions here, if desired)

Comments

• Edit count as of 16:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC): 759 (2494 on WP)

Support

• Support. I am voting for support here, although I worry that you are going to burn yourself out with all your help here and at wikipedia. I do appreciate your help in the matters of policy. WB isn't WP, and while we can certainly learn lessons from our sister projects, most of us don't have a desire to do everything the same. Your experiance in that community will be a benefit to us all, so long as you are willing to take the extra step of differentiating between these two communities. Wikibooks is at a point now--and I strongly believe this--where big things are about to happen. We need strong, knowledgable people who are willing to muddle through policy discussions, build infrastructure, and help to make wikibooks a great online project. by the way, if I may insert a shameless plug, I am trying to draft a new policy concerning admins at Wikibooks:Administrators/Proposal. Stop by there, and give me your two cents. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually, I'm planning to spend less time on WP and more here (fits me better, and it's kind of neat that I can actually go through all the new pages each day if I feel like it, without having to clone myself 5 times and have all 5 of me working at them all day). SB_Johnny | ^talk

• Support - You're active and I hope it stays that way. I tend to almost always oppose new admins because so many don't stick around, but you've been here about six months and I hope you're keeping a trend of editing here. Wikibooks is not Wikipedia and I worry that you'll try to move too much of their ideas over here, but there's enough participation on this project now to keep that in check I think. Even this RfA isn't our style but not all Wikipedia ideas are bad ones and we'll see how it goes. -withinfocus 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Don't worry about the "SB_Johnny-come-lately" thing... I actually spend much more time on wikibooks than I do on WP, though mostly as a reader. The low edit count has more to do with the quality of the work and lack of vandals/spammers here (as opposed to WP), than anything else.

As far as "bringing things from there to here is concerned", I'm feeling very conservative about that. If I seem very active on the topic, it's because (a) there really just isn't much in the way of consensus-driven policy here yet, and (b) I don't want wikibooks to be like wikipedia in certain respects. Let's chat about that some more.. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support.--Cspurrier 21:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support From what I have seen, he is fully qualified to do the job :) --Aschoeke 13:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Considerate editor, works well with others. The more admins the better. Kellen ^T 14:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Done. 5 Votes for, none against, you are now a sysop. Congratulations. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations for adminship

[edit] Dragontamer ( talk | email | contribs )

I'm nominating Dragontamer for adminship in part because of some outstanding contributions to Wikibooks, and what I feel is a need to get more of a contributor's viewpoint into administrative decisions. In going over his contribution history, he certainly has been active all over Wikibooks and adding considerable content, as well as helping out with many of the decisions that we have been making here resulting from the many policy votes that have been taking place lately.

Some concern about this user was raised regarding the fact that he seemed to lack experience as a contributor to effectively understand general Wikibooks policies, and that perhaps may have been a valid concern. He certainly understands those policies now, and can be considered as trusted of a user to help with making content decisions as anybody else here. Indeed, this is a user that has asked for the ability to help out on Wikibooks as an administrator, and this is a task that certainly needs as many eyes as possible. Having more eyes on what is going on in terms of content deletion is a healthy thing, and we need more people from many different viewpoint.

His first edit was last August, although he really didn't become active on Wikibooks until November, so perhaps some caution was in line for his first request for adminiship. His subsequent edit history speaks for itself, and he has certainly been voicing his opinion on general topics about Wikibooks and Wikiversity as well.

Wikibooks needs users that are dedicated to helping this project succeed, and we can always use more admins here as this project is growing. Please support me in this nomination and help Dragontamer become our newest administrator. --Rob Horning 11:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I accept my nomination. Thank you Robert for Nominating me :) --Dragontamer 20:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

What would you use the admin tools for, and how would you use them? I find your case a somewhat difficult one due to a few of your past comments. Putting disagreements over issues we've discussed together aside, I feel like there's a bit of haste and immaturity in some of the things you say. I have no intentions to personally attack you, but sometimes I found your reasoning somewhat peculiar. If you could state where you'll actually be using admin tools I might be more confident in giving a support vote, but if you plan on doing a lot of sensitive things with the tools (such as deletions of possible policy violations, decisions of whether concensus is achieved or not, etc.) I have some worry. Sorry if anyone feels this is too direct a question and I'll understand if it's removed, but I'd like to know the answer. -Matt 04:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a discussion about me. By that definition, any comment against me is not "insulting", but instead "on-topic". So really, throw anything at me, as far as this topic goes, all questions are fair :). As an admin, I'd use the "one-click-revert" tool more often, it certainly will help out everyone. Bannings will not be used liberally, but there are obvious cases where it should be used. In this area, there aren't enough admins on all the time, it may sometimes take a few hours for even a responce in WB:VIP. When things come down to a vote however (Such as WB:VFD, I take on the concensus. I do not believe in a democracy (yet). Wikibooks is not big enough for a democracy to be efficient. Instead, I'll wait for a general feeling of "yes" vs "no" in the topic of discussion. I won't count votes, I won't use thresholds of "delete at 70%", no... I don't believe in those things. Maybe if wikibooks grows to the size of Wikipedia, but not now, most definitly.

As for other admin's actions; I trust every other admin right now. I will not "undo" an action of another admin (such as undeleting material). I'll talk it over to that particular admin if I feel it isn't right, but we are all smart people here, there is more than likely a reason that I cannot see. The admins here are reasonable, and I feel that if I can't convince an Admin to undo an action himself/herself, then my argument is the one at fault. --Dragontamer 20:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Votes

• Support --Kernigh 05:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I thought about this one and I don't think now is an appropriate time for adminship. I see immaturity in Dragontamer's comments around Wikibooks and am not comfortable if he were able to delete pages, block users, or many of the other more permanent admin decisions. I still don't think he's in full understanding of some policies here. Reverting vandalism is great but I don't see him doing that much of it and the manual method can easily suffice. -Matt 02:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  I've decided to change to support. The more I think about it, the less important I see some of my previous worries. He's staying active and as long as he doesn't go crazy with the tools I don't see it as a problem. If he wants to one-click-revert, then sure. I don't see this current discussion mentioning anything insensible and I hope he'll stay with it. -Matt 16:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  Keep in mind that becomming an adminstrator is not supposed to be that big of a deal (invoking Jimbo says here). Do you think this user is going to vandalism the main page, and do things that are substantially different from the current status quo on Wikibooks? Or go blocking other users including administrators that are unwarrented? Or delete pages that should remain? I hardly see how anybody could do more damage to Wikibook than what is currently happening right now with the huge flux of new policies and structural overhaul that is going on right now within this project, and with the total number of pages at Wikibooks dropping daily. There is enough cruft that there is plenty of work for everbody to be involved, and I doubt that he is going to do something like delete Cookbook or something else that is similarly establshed here on Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 15:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  I think you're assuming that I think his actions will be extreme. That is not the case. I am not worried that he will vandalize pages and delete popular content; I am worried that he will look at the speedy deletion category and delete pages listed there inappropriately. I am not worried that he will block administrators; I am worried he will block those listed on WB:VIP without regard. I am not worried that he will not follow policies like WB:NPA; I am worried that he will archive things like VFDs that haven't made substantial conclusions. It's just a maturity issue. I think some comments and decisions have been made with haste. With what he's doing now, admin tools aren't giving him much anyway. Users like User:Jguk and User:Kernigh were limited by not having the tools. This user makes a casual revision sometimes. Since I see his discussions as worrisome and his actions as unhindered, I don't see a reason to have sysop. I think there's a fundamental disagreement between us there since you like having many admins to perform less actions per admin and the mass makes up for it whereas I think there should be a smaller number that work with more dedication. I prefer the latter since those that work as admins really are making a difference and are motivated to make that difference. If someone wants to make a revert like myself, they can do it. Tools aren't necessary. -Matt 19:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't voted (and am unlikely to do so) because I am not familiar enough with Dragontamer to have much of an opinion (and am unlikely to to find the time to review his contributions). But some of your (Matt's) comments has made me curious. You cite immaturity, say that some ocmments and decisions have been made in haste, and say that some of his discusions are worrisome. Can you, without unreasonable difficulty, cite some diffs that show this? Note. Having to comb through Dragontamer's contribution log for things you now only vaguely remember off the top of your head counts, at least as far as my interest is concerned, unreasonable difficulty and so as inability to cite the diffs. Others more likely than me to vote may have a different definition of "unreasonable difficulty". At any rate, I am not challenging you on this, I'm just curious. --JMRyan ^T E C 12:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a difficult thing to show indeed. However, I found a couple instances. Just below here in the de-adminship for Cyp, he leaves an [1] which I find inappropriate since it's a very sensitive matter. Also, there is [2] which I see as unnecessary and a bad idea. What's there needs to be there. It's a combination of many small things that just seem unnecessary to do or say sometimes. It's a level of professionalism with administrative matters. -Matt 18:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I see the controversy with #2, and I understand your point with #1. Although yes, it was a sensitive matter; I felt that those comments I deleted were unnecessary a to the topic at hand, and hurting the sprit of Wikibooks. But I am glad that you pointed these out. Although I understand my action with #2 was aggressive, I still stand by my actions as per the suggestion in WB:NPA.

"You might also consider removing particularly clear-cut personal attacks"

As far as your other concerns, Blocking and deleting in my eye are the most severe actions possible on this site. Unfortunatly, there are very clear cut cases where a user must be blocked to stop their vandalism. I think that a block of even just 1 hour can do the trick for most vandals. As for deleting pages, if anything is iffy, thats why WB:VFD is there for. I also don't think pages should be deleted if they are new; instead, I'd talk it over with the main author and why I feel it is against policy. As for disobeying policy and archiving discussions, those can be done by anyone, so I don't think that is an issue here. --Dragontamer 04:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support --German Men92 23:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Active, helpful, friendly. Admin Material. --Whiteknight(talk)(projects) 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

With our current debate going on, I am pleasantly surprised at your vote :-) --Dragontamer 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't vote for people just because they think like me or act like me. This "debate" has given me an opportunity to see how you perform in matters of policy, and i've taken enough interest to go over your contribution history. Everything looks good to me. --Whiteknight(talk)(projects)

• Support -- John N. 10:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• SupportDolive35 10:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dragontamer has now been given sysop rights

[edit] RobinH ( talk | email | contribs )

This user is very active here at wikibooks, has a good contribution history, and is very active in matters of policy. I certainly don't always agree with him, but he cares about this community, and he has a good head on his shoulders. I think he would make an excellent admin, with the power to enforce the policies that he is helping to create. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for proposing me as an admin but I will have to turn this down for the moment. I feel I should really be concentrating on books, especially GCSE Biology and sections on "Symmetry and Physical Laws" and Waves in the SR book. It would probably be best to leave adminship until I have got these books finished. I would also like to turn some books into genuine high-quality publications. (Are there any artists out there?). I am very grateful for the work of the admins, such as yourself, who maintain the environment here. RobinH 14:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You need it for some rather minor things. Once you start moving pages around, you'll find that it is easy to trap yourself with an old page (often an edited redirect) sitting right where you want to move some other page. AlbertCahalan 22:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User declined nomination. -withinfocus 01:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for de-adminship

For the below, please see the recent discussion. The below editors have not contributed within the last six months or are performing little to no administrative tasks.

Comment: It's now been a month since this discussion was started. I'm therefore asking a steward to come and de-admin those for whom there is at least 80% support for de-adminning, Jguk 14:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the better solution is to ask to de-sysop only users where there are no oppose votes. 80% is not much when so few people are voting and Marshman is a sysop. --Derbeth ^talk 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any 80% rule should be used. The quality of the argument should define the action. Even though one oppose exists in several of the admins listed, the reasons shown were pretty quickly dismissed and the case for those users is still pretty solid looking. A single oppose from a contested admin should not stop a de-sysopping. In addition, it would be nice to see if the Steward can offer any action towards the recent inappropriate comments made and possibly make a decision on all cases. -Matt 15:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The steward's role is not to make decisions, but instead to carry out actions for which there is already community consensus. Looking below, and not counting "neutral" votes as presumably being neutral means that you are publicly saying you don't want to influence anything one way or another, there are a number of "nominations" that have 100% support. It's fair to say that they have consensus - absent a rash of new comments now, those users should now be de-sysopped. There are then a number of "nominations" with a single oppose and four supports - is that consensus or do we allow one user to have a veto? Does that answer change if there are more support votes? Personally I think a 4-1 margin is sufficient, but if you disagree with that, at what level do the supports win the day - 5-1? 6-1? 100-1? As far as the marshman nomination is concerned, it is clear that some users have strong opinions on this one - it is equally clear that there is currently no consensus to de-sysop him - and I trust those that support that nomination accept, albeit reluctantly, that that is the case, Jguk 15:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with using vote counts as decision tools. For instance, although there is one opposing vote in some of the de-sysopping cases, I believe that oppose does not have any sort of backing and has been defeated. Therefore, the de-sysopping should occur. Consensus has still been reached even though a lone dissenter objected. You yourself corrected the opposing vote quite adequately. The Steward still must make a judgement call on what the consensus actually is and that it what I am referring to. I think the Steward could see through any of the small oppositions. Regarding the one heavily-contested case, I simply hope the Steward can possibly add some insight into where the voting may actually be headed, especially since various user interaction policies were violated during the discussion. -Matt 21:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

To note, I have requested action on many of the below cases over at meta. -Matt 04:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karen Johnson ( talk | email | contribs )

(last edit:19:37, 23 April 2004; last log entry:none)

• Support - Has not edited in many months. Most likely the admin's knowledge of policy is quite out of date. -Matt 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Derbeth ^talk 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Jguk 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I left a message on her talk page. --JMRyan 23:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support As per my previously stated standard of being inactive for > 1 year --Rob Horning 10:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral --Kernigh 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sysop rights removed by Steward. -Matt 23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Emsworth ( talk | email | contribs )

(last edit:09:14, 10 April 2004; last log entry:none)

• Support - Has not edited in many months. Most likely the admin's knowledge of policy is quite out of date. -Matt 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Derbeth ^talk 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, Jguk 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I left a message on his talk page. --JMRyan 23:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support As per my previously stated standard of being inactive for > 1 year --Rob Horning 10:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral --Kernigh 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sysop rights removed by Steward. -Matt 23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reytan ( talk | email | contribs )

(last edit:13:02, 27 July 2004; last log entry:none)

• Support - Has not edited in many months. Most likely the admin's knowledge of policy is quite out of date. -Matt 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, Jguk 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Of course! I don't need adminship now. Reytan 18:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I left a message on his talk page. --JMRyan 23:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support As per my previously stated standard of being inactive for > 1 year --Rob Horning 10:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral --Kernigh 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support I mean; he agreed, didn't he? --Dragontamer 23:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I guess. He said he didn't need it, so no real reason to keep. Odd, though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sysop rights removed by Steward. -Matt 23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marshman ( talk | email | contribs )

Simply not true that I do not contribute and appears to be an attack on me by Derbeth because I consider him to be somewhat of a menace here and once opposed his request for more powers after he made unwarranted personal attacks on me (available in the record). I spend about 90-95% of my time at Wikipedia where about half of that time is spent on "admin duties". I'm pretty active, but come over here to relax and advance my textbooks, perhaps once a week (more often if I am actively working on a chapter in one of the several books I am the primary producer of (Ecology and Botany being the main ones, but I also work on German and other Biology texts). I really never considered that Sysop rights "required" that I do certain things, so I'm unfamiliar with the "logs" that people are pushing forward to show how I "abuse my power" (pretty funny Matt; that and the one example of "defamatory comments, a plural) by only working on my textbooks (actually, I've helped out others without sysop powers many times, but maybe not in recent weeks or even months, but so what?). Somewhow, I thought the textbooks were the point here, not administrative duties. Although I'm pretty involved in just the textbooks that interest me (are those now "personal projects"?), I would pack up and leave if attacks such as this become the norm over here or this particular one is successful against me. Actually, this is a rather transparent attack by two users with some sort of axe to grind—I certainly hope you all see through it. - marsh 04:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I did a quick check this morning on the contributions of both Matt and Derbeth, and lo' neither is a recent contributor here. They seem to be completely devoted to running around and policing Wikibooks. While I agree that can be a useful function, Wikibook contributors might be a bit concerned with the developing concept that Sysops and Writers are to be regarded as separate categories, with the "policemen" holding all sysop powers. This would have a very chilling impact on the entire project and seems to me more than as little contrary to the ideals of Wikipedia. - marsh 18:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support - User active but not with administrative tasks. Looks like an abuse of power since almost all activities are for his/her own personal projects. Also leaves defamatory comments [3] about other users. -Matt 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  Is there any other evidence of administrator abuse? Content removed or users banned that were unwarrented? While expressing opinion like this is harsh, by itself in a couple of lone instances it should not be justification to deamin somebody. His becoming an admin predates the current bureaucrat log, and has few entries in the logs. Certainly nothing I would complain about. --Rob Horning 15:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  By what I have seen him say, notably what I linked to above and here, the user makes immature comments and does not keep quality in how he comments. He resorts to insulting and sarcastic remarks, one of the main things that an an admin should not do in my opinion. I don't think he projects himself appropriately. I think we see the half-filled glass from different points of view. You say that he hasn't done enough bad things to lose sysop privileges, but I say he hasn't done enough to keep the privileges. His administrative actions have been for his own benefit with his book project and he has done nothing in the past many months to help the community besides what his book offers. I'd like for the list of admins here to really mean that those who have it are doing something with it. -Matt 20:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  I will say that Marshman is one of the early members of the Wikibooks community who was not happy with the way things have been changing on Wikibooks since the current generation of new administrators came in. Another user, and the most prominent admin prior to my nomination as administrator, was User:KelvSYC, who has since abandoned Wikibooks due to his percieved "ruin" of this project. See Wikibooks talk:Policy/Vote/Archive 1#kelvSYC's thoughts that were essentially the last major contribution he made to this project. If these individuals want to at least voice their opinion on these topics, I think they should be encouraged. KelvSYC really did do an outstanding job at a time when he was essentially the only active administrator on this whole project. Marshman certainly is a part of that earlier group of admins and users on Wikibooks, and I'm surprised he is still active here. --Rob Horning 10:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

C'mon Rob. I'm not unhappy with any "new" admin changes going on. I do tend to call a spade a spade, but it is not fair to paint me with the same brush as others as I'm not part of any group here. - marsh

• Ok, Rob, but we should remember that sysop function is not an honour or award for being a good contributor. Sysop priviledges are for users who are going to make maintainace, cleanup tasks. I'm not considering de-sysopping a "punishment", it's just practical move. --Derbeth ^talk 11:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  I have to make some explanation here, because I made a spelling error which suggested I think de-sysopping a punishment "now", when I wanted to say I am "not". Marshman is suggesting that I am making a campaign against him, but it is easy to check, that I haven't written anywhere that I at least suggest de-sysopping him. But as I read Marshman's posts here, I begin to wonder. Marhsman, you see personal attacks on you everywhere and admit explicitly, that you don't know administrative tools and do not need them. --Derbeth ^talk 10:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  What Marshman wrote above will hopefully further the case to remove sysop powers. I don't see why, but Marshman decided to single Derbeth and I out regarding this matter. I see no gain in looking up our contributions and trying to generalize our actions here. Also, Derbeth has not even voted on this user's de-sysopping! Marshman in the above post has explained that he doesn't use (or need) administrative powers regularly and for gain to the community. Combined with personal attacks towards Derbeth and I, I hope this solidifies the de-sysopping case here. -Matt 03:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, but without prejudice to reconsidering the matter once Matt has discussed with Marshman why he thinks Marshman should no longer have sysop rights. This is the only nomination here for de-sysopping an active editor, and the only one which is not a "no fault" de-sysopping. I'm also concerned that Matt has not let this user know on his user talk page that he is proposing this move, Jguk 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  My comment to Rob got most of this I think. The fact that if this user was active with administrative duties he would not need notification, but I see you took care of that. This adminship is not being used effectively and when it is even used at all, it is for personal projects. I don't think admins who act like this should keep sysop rights. -Matt 21:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support Abstain I left a message on his talk page (even though Jguk had already left one). This is easily the most difficult case, indeed the only difficult case for me. He has used his sysop privileges recently, but only on his own projects. While I agree that the "for cause" evidence cited is decidedly over the top, I agree with Rob Horning that this is not sufficient. The only real issue for me here is his lack of use of sysop rights outside his own project. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, by his activity is essentially that of an author rather than a sysop. --JMRyan 23:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed my vote above from Support to Abstain. This vote was originally called to clear out some administrative deadwood: to remove sysop rights from those who weren't using them. Marshman was clearly the most difficult case of the ten Requests for de-adminship here as he has actually used his sysop rights but only occasionally (11 times since Dec. 2004) and only within his own projects. Unfortunately Matt, in my opinion, did the discussion a disservice by also listing bad behavior as a reason for removing Marshman's sysop rights. Until this discussion started, his bad behavior consisted of occasional overwrought reactions to his perception of having his overly sensitive toes stepped on—hardly anything to lose his sysop rights over. Now we have the current fisticuffs. The worst example of Marshman's bad behavior by far is the current discussion. Not that I'm surprised. Marshman was exactly who I had in mind when I warned at [4] that some admins who might be brought up for de-adminship might have very sensitive toes.

With regard to the sparse use of sysop rights, Marshman brought up an important consideration, albeit easy to miss amidst his vitriol. He asked whether we really wanted to keep authors and sysops in separate categories. Now that's not exactly the issue, for there are those who are both. But it does raise the related question, how sparse do we need one's sysop work to be before we consider him to be an administrator who is not administrating. That is a "who we are" type question, not a mere matter of cleanup (in this case, cleanup of our admin list). I initially voted in favor of de-sysopping as a mere matter of cleanup. Since I'm not so sure Marshman's case is really a mere matter of cleanup, I now find myself uncertain of how to vote. On this matter, my opinion has moved from support to abstention.

With regard to bad behavior, Marshman's behavior here seems almost to constitute a campaign for de-sysopping. He isn't abusing his sysop rights here, but he certainly came into this with fists flying. (Not that Matt and Derbeth haven't lost their cool here, but at least they had the decency to wait until the fight got going before getting angry.) As far as I can see, his behavior here is worse than all previous instances combined. I don't have a good sense as to how bad behavior has to be before I want to de-sysop someone. It does trouble me that a vote to de-sysop based on bad behavior needs to rely on that vote itself for its most significant evidence of bad behavior. However, as I've noted, his behavior here does not surprise me. On this matter, my opinion has moved from strong opposition to mild opposition. As with my previous vote, my opinion on his sparse use of sysop rights is controlling my vote. --JMRyan 22:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to argue with you and this will be my only comment towards this (more so a clarification of my reasoning), but calling part of my actions a "disservice" is quite the opinion. I think someone with sysop rights should be professional as well as productive. Behavior while acting under the pretense of being an administrator can be a very serious matter. I simply think that you should not list this "disservice" like it is a fact, but merely something you think should not be addressed. We may very well have largely different opinions regarding conduct here. -Matt 01:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the "disservice" comment to reflect that it is an opinion. I guess I didn't say anything to justify that opinion. My reasons are as follows. When you brought up bad behavior, we did not yet have his entries into the current discussion; the bad behavior in question consisted of a couple of (admittedly nasty) indiscretions. The only way it could be adequate reason for de-sysopping at that stage would be for us to adopt something akin to a zero-tolerance policy. The bad behavior reason for de-sysopping and the sparse use of sysop rights reason are so different as not to be cumulative. Either reason needs to stand or fall on its own. (Not that two types of reason can't be cumulative, it just that these two are too different for that.) All of this came up in the context of a house-cleaning to which only the sparse use of rights issue is relevant. If you felt (as obviously you did) that the bad behavior issue was a significant concern in Marshman's case, then that makes his case very different than the others. The bad behavior issue is in my opinion distracting and out of place in a house-cleaning context. It would have in my opinion been better either to leave out the bad behavior issue as too minor to worry about or to deal with the other nine cases first and then, after that's done, bring up Marshman's case separately. You're right that we're better off agreeing to disagree rather than arguing about this. I hope this comment has not been argumentative—that wasn't my intention. --JMRyan 20:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I attach below a list of all the sysop actions Marshman has done, which I do in order that we can have a fully informed discussion. I can't see anything untoward or abusive there, and if he hadn't take the action himself then another admin would have done it the action on request, Jguk 07:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC):

18:28, 2 June 2005 Marshman deleted "Image:Noni Oahu.jpg" (Replacing (moving) photo to Wikimedia Commons)

03:55, 14 April 2005 Marshman blocked "60.26.37.47 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Continues to spam pages with wierd stuff)

18:42, 14 March 2005 Marshman deleted "Ecologyr" (content was: '#REDIRECT Ecology' A typo!)

18:41, 14 March 2005 Marshman deleted "Ecology" (content was: '#REDIRECT Ecologyr' Correct typo)

18:39, 14 March 2005 Marshman deleted "Ecology" (content was: '#REDIRECT Ecology Introduction' ~ change to cover)

02:27, 11 March 2005 Marshman deleted "InvertZoo: A final note about the Guide" (Move made to get consistency in page names)

04:27, 27 January 2005 Marshman deleted "Botany:Plant reproduction laboratory" (content was: '#REDIRECT Botany: Plant reproduction laboratory flower')

06:47, 14 January 2005 Marshman blocked "67.115.107.84 (contribs)" with an expiry time of $2 (Numerous vandalising of Main Page and many User pages)

19:37, 22 December 2004 Marshman deleted "German:Lesson6" (content was: '#REDIRECT German: Lesson 6' - Temp page)

19:35, 22 December 2004 Marshman deleted "German: Lesson 6" (content was: '#REDIRECT German: Lesson 5')

19:33, 22 December 2004 Marshman deleted "German: Lesson 5" (content was: '#REDIRECT German:Lesson6')

• Oppose Desysopping - While Matt may not feel that he is being a diligent admin, I don't see any harm to allowing this user to maintain the sysop privileges, and he might just help us out here with admin tasks if we ask politely. I apologize to Marshman for apparently trying to paint him with the same brush as KelvSYC, as they are clearly two very different people. As this user is maintaining some sort of appearance here on Wikibooks (including responding to this Request for Deadminship) and certainly not doing any damage with the administrator tools, I fail to see the justification for removing this status from this user. Just because you have administrator privileges, I don't think it should be a hard and fast rule to require that you must perform certain actions with those privileges. The main reason I support desysoping anybody at all (beyond blatant abuse) is to encourage more people to come to Wikibook and help with administrator tasks. In the past there were some users who suggested that there were plenty of active admins on Wikibooks so there was no need to create any new ones. With very inactive admins it tends to skew this viewpoint even more than it needs to. I don't think we have enough admins though, even now. I also support having a large variety of viewpoints for admins... even if I don't necessarily agree with the opinions of those users. --Rob Horning 06:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If an admin is not using the tools given to him/her, then what is the purpose of letting them keep those tools? I do not understand how "maybe he'll use them later" is a valid excuse for letting him keep the tools. His administrative actions have only been for his own projects and he admits he does not know how some tools even work. Your comment is after Marshman's latest, but I'd like to hear your opinion on what he said and how an admin should conduct him/herself because his comments are incredibly abrasive and unncesssary, especially for an admin. -Matt 18:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Marshman is hardly the most abrasive person here on Wikibooks... or even the most abrasive admin for that matter. To support de-sysopping somebody I would like to see actual harm done or abuse of admin privileges, such as blocking another user during a flame war, protecting pages simply to keep your POV on a page against another user, or deleting content that should have been kept... especially if it is redeleted persistantly. Nothing he has done so far indicates that this is a problem, and I fail to see why this action must happen. I wouldn't support him to become an admin at the moment, but that decision has already been made and happened a long time ago. I feel that de-sysopping must have a strong cause against that person. Complete inactivity for more than a year is a strong cause for action, perhaps, and even that I consider a weak cause for action compared to other more serious reasons to de-sysop somebody. Marshman has demonstrated simply by responding here that he is far from inactive. --Rob Horning 18:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question regarding how an admin should conduct him/herself. Marshman's comments are becoming less and less mature as well as more and more off-topic as this conversation furthers, and I don't see how a person with at least some expectations of professionalism could act the same was as Marshman is acting. -Matt 23:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to see intelligence is starting to prevail. I'm more than a little mystified at where "Matt" is even coming from: "his comments are incredibly abrasive and unncessary"? Really? I think he found one silly example where I was agreeing with another user about Derbeth as an admin. It should be pretty obvious to anyone that will look at my record and Derbetrh's record that this whole "de-admin" thing is just a way of carrying on against me by Derberth and "Matt". How did a question of removing sysop status from users that have not contributed anything in a year (tenor of discussion at the Staff Lounge), become an opportunity for "Matt" to run his mouth about whether he likes me or not? I have more to say on this subject, but not appropriate in this particulatr forum - marsh 18:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What Marshman is saying is that I and Matt are plotting against him and thinking all the time how to remove sysop powers from him. I'm tired answering accuses having no justification. Anyone can check that I was not the one who started talking about removing admin powers from inactive sysops and I haven't written anything about Marshman connected with this subject until I was mentioned here. I do not contact with Matt (Withinfocus) and in fact don't know him, we don't write to each other at Wikibooks, neither do we meet at Wikibooks IRC channel. Marshman is trying to raise a paranoia here. This whole thing is tiring me, I had decided not to vote and discuss Marshman's case but Marshman's comment are forcing me to defend myself against false accusations. --Derbeth ^talk 21:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This conversation is becoming quite tiring indeed. As Marshman continues to comment, this entry becomes less about what an admin is and who should be one and more about paranoid plots of attack. Marshman, no one here is attacking you personally. I have no knowledge of who you are or who Derbeth is. I simply want people who are sysops to be productive with the tools and use them for the right things. My comments about you being abrasive are apparent in your entire conversation here, not just with what I linked. Many of your edits on talk pages are often insulting to those you disagree with and lack professionalism I expect with rational conversation and that of a person with sysop rights especially. Perhaps you could at least answer why you think you even need sysop rights? What are you currently doing with them or plan to be doing? You have not participated in any of the most recent policy discussions or other administrative-type activities for many months (not exactly that you are expected to, but it does affect how you would use sysop tools throughout the project). Why do you even want to keep the tools besides for your own personal benefit regarding your personal projects? -Matt 23:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If your tiring means I will not hear anything more from Derbeth/"Matt" then I'm happy indeed. I do not need to answer for anything to you as I've done nothing to deserve any of this and you are nothing. In fact, I find it more than a little hard to believe that given the many admins here (Wikipedia/Wiktionary/Wikibooks), I'm the only one that is a regular contributor and yet has to answer for "how much" I use my sysop tools. But I plan to start examining his (Derbeth/"Matt") record in the proper forum, which of course this is not. - marsh 01:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This comment is exactly what I am talking about. Now that I actually asked a question on the subject, you refuse to answer it, insulting me in the process. I'm also not sure if I should treat your comment as some sort of threat towards me. I'd like to hear what sort of "forum" you're discussing and what you mean by examine, because to me that sounds very much like a personal attack. How you would do such things is most likely insignificant nonetheless, but I still feel threatened. Lack of professionalism is one of the main points of this de-sysopping. I personally would not want to be greeted to the project with such similar words. If you're done objecting here (just like you said, you've done nothing warranting keeping sysop), then we can move on with the de-sysopping. I hope that this long string of insulting and threatening remarks will solidify the support. -Matt 02:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"I do not need to answer for anything to you as I've done nothing to deserve any of this and you are nothing." I can't stand it any more. You are directly making a personal attack against me and Matt, threatening us a mysterious "proper forum". I've been at several Wikimedia projects but I don't remember a sosop calling other user "nothing". "I'm the only one that is a regular contributor and yet has to answer for "how much" I use my sysop tools." – this shows you are living in your own world – are you the only active contributor here? Don't you see other 20 000 contributors? You completely don't understand what sysops tools are, they are not connected with writing books and are not an award for contributing much and we, the community, have choosen to grant you sysop rights so you are obliged to answer to our questions.. This is completely pathological attitude and you are showing again your vain, arrogance and ignorance, not to mention paranoidal personal attacks. I promised myself not to vote here and omit this entry, but now I don't have any choice. In my opinion Marshman in not a material for a sysop and he just shown all the bad sides of his character. Vote for de-sysopping. --Derbeth ^talk 08:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Derbeth, to be fair to Marshman, I think you misunderstood his comment about being the only active contributor here. I don't think he meant that he is the only active contributor to Wikibooks. I think he meant that he is the only contributor to books (as opposed to the Wikibook project as a whole) who is part of the current disscussion (You, me, him, Matt, Rob, and Jguk . Not that he's right about that, but he's off by considersably less than 20,000. --JMRyan 22:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Oops, I misread it too. --JMRyan 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant, of the 10 or so de-admins being considered here, I am the only one that is a steady, regular contributor. What I said (perhaps badly) is that of all the sysops here or anywhere in the larger project there must be many who are regular contributors but use their sysop privleges sparingly. I seem to be the only one singled out for attack, oddly after a run-in with Derbeth - marsh 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not your previous record that I find appauling — it is your attitude to this current situation that I find especially distasteful. I'm not going to single you out either; I think Derbeth should cool it a bit as well. But bringing Matt into this? Matt IMO, addressed reasonable concerns on this issue, and while I personally don't see much importance of them; I think it would be important for you to answer his question. Finally; my opinion of this whole issue is that you Marshman, are the initiator to this whole flame-war thing. I don't like any of these traits; but as said in my post below; I don't think they are enough to de-sysop you. I just don't like how you're acting now. --Dragontamer 23:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well wait until someone jumps on you for doing nothing in particular. And if I initiated the flame war here, it is only because it was carried over from elsewhere (so I might well appear to be the initiator given only the record on this page). I do not feel the need to defend my record (no one should) and I'm a bit insulted at being singled out to do so. I am a serious and longtime contributor at Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikibooks. It is a fact that no one expects credit or praise for what they contribute, but that means no one should put up with abuse either. And I did not "bring Matt into" anything. He joined the fray quite willingly and with both feet IMHO. There is plenty to do here and at Wikipedia, without suffering personal attacks about what I contribute. Please look past the verbage and decide whether you agree that admins that are around and working should be "de-sysoped" for not chasing vandals or other house-keeping duties. The rest of all of this is just smoke. - marsh 02:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to suggest that perhaps we need to get a steward in here to help moderate this whole thing. I won't "bring in the calvary" unless Derbeth, Matt, and Marshman all agree to drop their personal attacks against each other and agree to this idea of bringing in a 3rd party. We are going to need a steward anyway to help with the desysopping procedures, so it might as well get it done right. I wish there were some other opinions here from still more users about wheither Marshman ought to be desysoped or not, but that is going to simply take some time, and a "cooling off" needs to happen. I could add more comments here, including respond to Matt's comment that was in response to mine, but I don't want to fan the flames right now. Please, everybody, relax a bit and look at the beneficial efforts that everybody has been contributing here to Wikibooks, including not only Derbeth or Matt, but also Marshman as well, and acknowledge that this is a fight over a petty nothing that has no long term consequences. --Rob Horning 12:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with a Steward coming in. I think it's very clear who was out of line and the Steward can finalize the de-sysoppings. I don't think this conversation has gone very far lately due to Marshman's comments, so I hope the Steward can also finalize this de-sysopping as well. -Matt 17:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rob. This guy is over the top in my estimation. Please get some outside perspective in here - marsh 18:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose This is an active user who is not abusing sysop powers. (Marshman might also be reading the histories of deleted pages, and such actions are not logged.) I want also to mention that while en.wikibooks is a very large wiki, it has only a few users who edit often. Thus, every dispute can easily start to feel like "personal attacks"; it is too easy to confuse criticism of an idea with criticism of the only two or three users actively supporting it. --Kernigh 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'm starting to understand that - marsh 06:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, but reprimand Marshman for his uncivil behavior. User seems active enough, and unless severe abuses of sysop privileges can be shown, I see no reason to de-adminify him. However, moving forward, (to Marshman) please try and remain civil, especially operating around people with whom you may disagree. Administrators need to be a good face for Wikibooks and need to be held to a higher standard. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I'd like to see Marshman repremanded in some way; but de-admining someone should not be a "punishment" in of itself. Additionally; I'd rather err on the side of too many admins than too few. The more admins the better IMO. I feel that Marshman's comments can easily be classified as personal attacks (best example is on someone else's talk page, where he agrees that Derbeth is evil [5]).

In my opinion; marshman's reactions to this de-sysoping is hurting his own reputation even more, so perhaps that is punishment of in itself. There hasn't been any major issue IMO of Marshman abusing his powers, but if the personal attacks continue; I think a couple of days of cooling off (aka, ban for a few days or so) should be applicable. Finally; I find that his paranoia of Wikibook contributors (check out his statements at the top of this section) is hurtful to this project. All in all however; I don't think these "bad feelings" are enough to de-sysop someone. --Dragontamer 22:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally; I've searched as deeply as I can and I think the controversy started here with this edit by Derbeth: [6]. While still not enough for me to say marshman should be de-admined, I think this shows immaturity; that this whole set of bad feelings started because of a "clean-up" banner. I still hold weak oppose; but that is pending depending on how marshman responds to this and future posts. --Dragontamer 22:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that is exactly where it all started, and my reaction was to remove the banner (which in hindsight I should have just moved to the talk page where it made more sense). Note I have never opposed the page renaming policy itself. And while perhaps I do sometimes have a "sharp" tongue, you cannot tell me that Derbeth and Matt have answered my comments with complete civility. Derbeth's initial response to my removing the banner he placed on the contents page of a book I am presently principal author of was to accuse me of not deserving admin status and then to nominate me (without informing me) to have my admin status removed under a program that seems clearly designed to weed out admins that are no longer active participants/contributors (typically after a 12-month absence). Perhaps I've over-reacted and I'm willing to take whatever "punishment" is deemed appropriate for that, but I still have a valid POV on this issue. - marsh 02:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Derbeth made no such action regarding getting Marshman nominated here. I was the one who brought up the topic of inactive sysops and I was the one who made the listing here. I believe that all of the users listed here were worthy of debate regarding their actions (or lack thereof) as sysops. I also believe that I did act with civility and know that I never loosened my wording or made personal attacks. I stayed on the topic of what the duties and role of a sysop are and did not try to make this a personal issue. Again I will repeat this, but Derbeth and I have had no previous communication with each other. We did not conspire, nor are we or I directing any sort of attack, especially against a single user. As I've been waiting weeks to hear this, I still would like to know why Marshman thinks he needs sysop status at all and what the problem is regarding removing it. -Matt 04:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Archived by jguk after one month's discussion. There was no consensus to de-sysop, and so the nomination failed.

[edit] Andreas Ipp ( talk | email | contribs )

(last edit:04:57, 12 May 2005; last log entry:01:28, 10 May 2005)

• Support - Has not edited in many months. Most likely the admin's knowledge of policy is quite out of date. -Matt 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Derbeth ^talk 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - edited from 8 January 2005 to 12 May 2005. No longer a wikibookian, Jguk 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I left a message on his talk page. --JMRyan 23:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose 12-month period of inactivity not up. Many users tire of this place and go on to other things for awhile. Maybe attempting to contact by email would be more fair. - marsh 02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral --Kernigh 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't ever remember a formal debate or vote on a 12 month inactivity period, just a discussion about one maybe being a good idea. As such, holding them to such a policy is unfair and a bad idea. --Gabe Sechan 18:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No concensus over several months of voting. De-sysopping failed. -Matt 02:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maveric149 ( talk | email | contribs )

(last edit:13:43, 8 April 2005; last log entry:13:33, 8 April 2005)

• Support - Has not edited in many months. Most likely the admin's knowledge of policy is quite out of date. -Matt 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Derbeth ^talk 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, Jguk 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I left a message on his talk page. --JMRyan 23:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose 12-month period of inactivity not up. Many users tire of this place and go on to other things for awhile. Maybe attempting to contact by email would be more fair. - marsh 02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral --Kernigh 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't ever remember a formal debate or vote on a 12 month inactivity period, just a discussion about one maybe being a good idea. As such, holding them to such a policy is unfair and a bad idea. --Gabe Sechan 18:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support --German Men92 01:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No concensus over several months of voting. De-sysopping failed. -Matt 02:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eclecticology ( talk | email | contribs )

(last edit:14:07, 2 January 2006; 22 edits total; last log entry:none)

• Support - Very small amount of edits, and none for admin tasks. -Matt 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Derbeth ^talk 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Has only made 22 edits since 29 October 2003. Never used sysop rights, Jguk 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I left a message on his talk page. --JMRyan 23:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose 12-month period of inactivity not up. Many users tire of this place and go on to other things for awhile. Maybe attempting to contact by email would be more fair. - marsh 02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since this user has only 22 edits (maybe he had more on the deleted Wikimania pages, but they shouldn't be in Wikibooks anyway), I think it's fair to say he's never really been here, rather than that Eclecticology is a Wikibookian, but just on a temporary break, Jguk 07:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Another comment: I've just had a look at this user's userpage. In January 2006, he himself expressed surprise at being a sysop here. Mind you, he did say he might be activated (I'm not really sure how), Jguk 08:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral --Kernigh 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't ever remember a formal debate or vote on a 12 month inactivity period, just a discussion about one maybe being a good idea. As such, holding them to such a policy is unfair and a bad idea. --Gabe Sechan 18:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Sysop powers should only be given to those who use it. Wikibooks is not benefitting from Eclecticology administrative rights. DaGizza 13:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No concensus over several months of voting. De-sysopping failed. -Matt 02:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perl ( talk | email | contribs )

(last edit:12:47, 2 February 2006; 2 edits after a two year Wikibreak; last log entry:none)

• Support - Very small amount of edits, and none for admin tasks. -Matt 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but in view of the recent edits would welcome having this user informed on his talk page so that if there are good reasons why we shouldn't proceed with the de-sysopping, we can consider them, Jguk 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This user made two edits recently and the most recent edit after that is in 2004. I'd say this user is gone, especially with regards to sysop, but I'll leave a message. -Matt 21:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support I left a message on his talk page (even though Matt had already left one). --JMRyan 23:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose 12-month period of inactivity not up. Many users tire of this place and go on to other things for awhile. Maybe attempting to contact by email would be more fair. - marsh 02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you checked Perl's contribution history? Are you saying 2 edits on 2 February 2006 after a period of inactivity since 31 October 2004 is active enough to merit retaining sysop rights, especially when this user has never, ever used sysop rights? Jguk 08:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral --Kernigh 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am not inactive, I've just been very busy. --Perl 14:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. User is active enough to oppose this, and if he still wants it, we shouldn't just take it away for no reason. He hasn't abused his powers in any way, has he? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The user is active enough? Besides the edits the user made on the day he/she came to vote here, I can count the number of edits this user has made in the past year and a half on one hand. Pairing that with never using logged administrative tools makes this a solid removal in my opinion. I'd like to hear how this user is active in anyway because by his/her statistics, this user stopped working here in 2004 besides a random edit or two. Since this user was given the rights so long ago and there has been no activity here, how does the community know that the user is even up to date on policy or anything else that an admin may need to know? Why does this user need administrative tools? There is no evidence of their use and this user didn't even say that they wanted to keep them. -Matt 21:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't ever remember a formal debate or vote on a 12 month inactivity period, just a discussion about one maybe being a good idea. As such, holding them to such a policy is unfair and a bad idea. --Gabe Sechan 18:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose --German Men92 01:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I am sorry to vote whilst I am not an editor here. Count my vote or do not count it. But, oppose. Anthere 23:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No concensus over several months of voting. De-sysopping failed. -Matt 02:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traroth ( talk | email | contribs )

(last edit:02:26, 21 December 2005; 1 edit after an 18 month Wikibreak; last log entry:none)

• Support - Very small amount of edits, and none for admin tasks. -Matt 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Derbeth ^talk 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, Jguk 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I left a message on his talk page. --JMRyan 23:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose 12-month period of inactivity not up. Many users tire of this place and go on to other things for awhile. Maybe attempting to contact by email would be more fair. - marsh 02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Again, are you say that one (and only one) edit, which was to thank a Wikibookian for his vote in the stewards election, rather than anything to do with Wikibooks [7], after 18 months of inactivity, is sufficiently active to justify retaining sysop rights that this user has never chosen to use anyway? Jguk 08:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral --Kernigh 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Please see Traroth's approval for de-sysopping. -Matt 15:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't ever remember a formal debate or vote on a 12 month inactivity period, just a discussion about one maybe being a good idea. As such, holding them to such a policy is unfair and a bad idea. --Gabe Sechan 18:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No concensus over several months of voting. De-sysopping failed. -Matt 02:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyp ( talk | email | contribs )

(last edit:01:29, 19 September 2005; 2 edits after an 18 month Wikibreak; last log entry:none)

• Support - Very small amount of edits, and none for admin tasks. -Matt 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Derbeth ^talk 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support, Jguk 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I left a message on his talk page. --JMRyan 23:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose 12-month period of inactivity not up. Many users tire of this place and go on to other things for awhile. Maybe attempting to contact by email would be more fair. - marsh 02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Again here, we have a user who effectively ceased being a Wikibookian on 7 February 2004 (though I'm sure he'd be welcome back). Are just two edits in August and September 2005 sufficient activity to need sysop rights, especially when this user has never chosen to use those rights anyway, Jguk 08:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral --Kernigh 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I admit that I haven't been active, but last I checked (which was actually a long time ago), there was no minimum activity requirement. كсηפ Cyp 06:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There is not an explicit minimum amount of activity, but the two do correlate together. Why do you even want to keep sysop tools? There is no evidence of your use of any of them. Besides your four most recent edits (which were spaced over more than six months at that), your next most recent edit was over two years ago. Why do you even want to keep the status? -Matt 21:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair question, and one worthy of a response from Cyp. If he's returning and will engage in maintenance tasks, that would be great. On the other extreme, if it's just to maintain some sort of souvenir (eg. I'm admin on X wikimedia projects), then really he shouldn't be an admin here. If it's somewhere in between, it's still fair that we should know, Jguk 22:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose -- No Comments --Dragontamer 13:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

May I still ask for some explanation of this oppose vote? You selectively chose to only vote oppose on some of these de-adminships, and I find it very important that any vote cast here has at least a small amount of explanation. What made you choose this user to oppose de-sysopping? -Matt 21:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my personal philosophy that more admins is better, even if some are inactive or whatnot. As long as the power is not abused; I see no reason to get rid of it. Power has not been abused here; it mearly has been sitting idle. There is no disadvantage to having an inactive sysadmin; especially one who really hasn't done any bad yet.

As far as "bragging rights" are, well; I don't really see that as an issue, really. "Former admin" on Wikibooks is still a badge he can wear if he pleases. It probably won't taint the name of wikibooks either for this specific case.

As for selection of the votes on this page... I just vote on the ones that stick out. Right now; I have no stance on the ones I haven't voted on yet. --Dragontamer 21:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If you were to go with "more admins the better" I think it would actually work if the users performed admin actions. Or in this case, any actions whatsoever. I guess I could say "the more X the better" as long as X did absolutely nothing and just existed. I see no point in saying that with a totally inactive account. This user isn't doing anything, let alone administrative duties. Also, this user is in the same exact situation as several other admins listed here, yet you did not vote on them. I can't understand both the vote and the attempts at explanation here. I find it very peculiar that only this user was voted on, and with the reasons given, why it wasn't simply an abstain at that. What you've said above makes it sound like you're indifferent whichever way this vote goes. -Matt 23:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought the point of voting was so that you can display your opinion? :-p Anyway; this stuck out the most because the person in question doesn't want his privlages removed. There is no point in an account that does nothing; similarly however; there is no point removing an account that does nothing.

And if the user in question doesn't want his sysop-privlages removed, then it is obvious that he plans to do something with it. Basically; I need to see a reason he shouldn't be an admin; not just "inactivity period". It is difficult enough for someone to become an admin already; he has proven to the community that he is trustworthy and probably cares for this project. With that said; there must be good reason to get rid of his powers; and undo the action the community already voted on.

PS: don't try and judge me by my lack of actions :) Yes, the choice to vote on this person was quite arbitrary. But if I had the power to get rid of the powers of this guy; I would not. Which is why I vote oppose.

PPS: I think we need a discussion in the staff lounge about this. --Dragontamer 19:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't disagree more with you regarding what you've said above. However, it's a never-ending discussion here with other people voting about how someone who does nothing should get to keep their privileges. All of the above admins have done essentially nothing for years, but people here seem to think that as long as they do nothing, they're fine as they are. I was trying to help clean up some of the mess here by getting admins who have left (and you know they have, even if you do not want to say it on principle) to be removed of rights they don't use. I think it shows the quality of the project when the list of active admins is longer than the list of inactive ones and those who are admins are actually up to date on what's going on here and have edited more than a handful of times in the past one-two years. An extremely important discussion that I think was still open just got archived and with responses like these it seems like concensus isn't going to happen. I plan for this to be the last comment I make regarding these de-sysoppings. Everyone has a right to their opinions of course, but mine versus others' isn't going to be resolved here and I'm just going to let it end. Oppose votes have already been cast on all the remaining users now. Also, we've already had a discussion regarding this in SL. -Matt 21:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Stong Oppose. User opposes, no evidence of sysop abuse, so no reason to support de-adminification. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it not more a case as to why should this user need sysop rights? If there's a fair case (and I don't think it has to be that strong for me to change my "vote") then that's fair enough - on the other hand, if it's just for bragging rights, then that to my mind would be enough to support de-adminification. 4 edits in 2 years does not seem to require sysop rights, Jguk 22:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't ever remember a formal debate or vote on a 12 month inactivity period, just a discussion about one maybe being a good idea. As such, holding them to such a policy is unfair and a bad idea. --Gabe Sechan 18:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No concensus over several months of voting. De-sysopping failed. -Matt 02:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Now that we have a solid enforced policy in place regarding inactive administrators, I am applying it in order to clean up some of the long-gone sysops here. The below administrators have been inactive for one year or longer besides a few spare edits. These users have been contacted on their talk page as well as e-mailed if possible to inform them of this process. All users listed below will have their sysop rights removed on 1 Nov 2006 and a consensus decision is not needed; this section is serving to inform the community of their de-adminship. Should a nominated admin come back and contest the nomination, some discussion may occur and the once-admin will be able to re-apply for adminship at a later date. Also, some well-known developers and users of Wikimedia as a whole have been excluded due to their notoreity across all projects. Should the community believe those users should still have their rights removed (futile in most cases since the users are Developers), that can be discussed at a later date. -withinfocus 21:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The policy also states explicitly that each of these admins should be contacted, if possible, by email. If you have not contacted them, I will. Please let me know the status of this. Other then that, I agree wholeheartedly that people who are not active here do not need to have an additional set of tools available to them. It is best to keep such tools for those users who sincerely have need of them. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did e-mail everyone I could which was only one user, The bellman. -withinfocus 00:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not emailed. — Omegatron 12:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You were not e-mailed because your address is not on file here. I made the extra effort to go to an entirely different wiki to leave a message on your talk page as well. -withinfocus 15:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that this morning. Wasn't authenticated yet. If you actually want to reach people, though, you should find the wiki they are most active on and contact them through their talk pages and local emails. — Omegatron 17:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I find that pretty ridiculous and at the root of the problem with inactive admins. Having to search around all the other projects to discuss an abandoned one is too much. -withinfocus 22:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many of these people became inactive before the email addresses were authenticated last, so many of them are simply not reachable through email. All the more reason for admins to ensure they have a valid email address. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have sent messages to User:Aya, and User:TUF-KAT, our two longest-absent bureaucrats. TUF-KAT is eligible to be nominated here as well, and Aya will be eligible within the month. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made a request at m:Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_access in order to effect these de-adminships. -withinfocus 05:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

All of the below users have now been de-sysopped. This discussion will be archived soon. -withinfocus 16:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andreas Ipp (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 12 May 2005.

This user does not have a valid email address here, nor on any other wikis. This user has not been active on any wiki (en.wiki, commons, or meta) since mid 2005. --User:Whiteknight17:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rights removed on 1 Nov 2006. -withinfocus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyp (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 7 Feb 2004.

Has an active account at en.wiki. I sent him a message --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rights removed on 1 Nov 2006. -withinfocus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eclecticology (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 4 Jun 2005.

I sent this user a message on his wikitionary talk page. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rights removed on 1 Nov 2006. -withinfocus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frazzydee (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 9 Jun 2005.

Has an active en.wiki account. I sent him a message there. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rights removed on 1 Nov 2006. -withinfocus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Furrykef (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 10 May 2005.

Has an active en.wiki account. I sent him a message there. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. - Furrykef 18:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rights removed on 1 Nov 2006. -withinfocus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geocachernemesis (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 15 Sep 2005.

Has an en.wiki account. I sent him a message there. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose policy is policy... I primarily used my admin powers to roll back vandalism, and I admit that is all I have had time to contribute over the past year or so. I suppose adminship is not a big deal, so I'll just have to apply to be reinstated at a later date. Anyway, have fun.:) Geo.^T 18:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Rights removed on 1 Nov 2006. -withinfocus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maveric149 (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 8 Apr 2005 (should be a duplicate of Daniel Mayer).

Has an active en.wiki account. I sent him a message there. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

He has replied to my message on en.wiki:

That's OK. I helped found the project, that is enough for me. --mav

--Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Rights removed on 1 Nov 2006. -withinfocus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omegatron (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 21 Aug 2005.

I don't know why you need to remove adminship just because people aren't using it. I'm no longer active here, so it doesn't really matter. But now I have even less reason to come here (adminship mainly used for image maintenance). — Omegatron 12:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a punishment, and we dont want to say that people who are inactive are "bad" or "undeserving". I'll send you an email right now explaining the situation better. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cancelled. This user has met minimum eligibility requirements, having had approximately 20 edits within the last year (Feb 2006). Granted, this user has not used the deletion policy since July 2005, but that is only a guideline. Also, this user has appeared to dispute the nomination. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute it, as I am inactive here. It doesn't directly affect me either way.

I just dispute the concept of de-adminship (in the absence of malicious behavior), as if it's a position of authority or something that people should only have under special circumstances. I think it's detrimental to progress on Wikibooks (which I have already abandoned for stagnation and lack of progress, even though it probably has some potential). — Omegatron 17:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I do understand your objections to this, and I'm sorry that you feel this way. It's my sincere belief that this isn't a punishment, and that admins don't have any additional authority: The powers are given when they are needed, and returned when they are not. Unfortunately, we have lost alot of talented people over the years for the same kinds of reasons you mentioned above: stagnation, lost potential, lack of progress, etc. If I may attempt to entice you, I have been personally doing alot of work on the electrical engineering shelf, and there are many books there now that may be of interest to a person with your qualifications. We would far prefer people to come back and become regular editors again, then to go through this de-adminship process. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not cancelled since the user has not made the minimum number of accepted edits, even if we were using a hard cutoff (it's 19). Looking at this user's history, his/her editing truly stopped at the beginning or August. Spare edits do not count as activity. -withinfocus 22:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"spare edits" also do not count as inactivity. The policy says 20 edits in year is the minimum, and I would venture to say there is little difference between a person who makes 19 edits in a year, and 21 edits in a year. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Therefore, when looking at this user's history, the last time of reasonable editing was when the edits were commonly around each other for several months. Editing drastically stopped in August 2005. A handful of edits did occur over a day or two in February, but I think we both agree that should be discounted as both inactivity and activity. -withinfocus 22:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? (What are you saying exactly?) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Talking specifics of the user's actions since August 2005 is a grey area and is being discounted. The last edits that are clearly active stop in August 2005, and that is the date of the start of inactivity. -withinfocus 20:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I no longer want to be part of this project. — Omegatron 21:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I find this added statement unfortunate, especially since the action of de-adminship has already taken place. This is like an "I have to get the final word in" after the discussion has ended. Once again, these actions were not meant as a punishment and are meant to be helpful to the users of the community, and thus a community consensus established them. Being a sysop should be "no big deal" as that's been repeated many times before and any users can re-apply at a later date. When a user needs help with something, those who have the ability should be around to help. There should be no "soreness" with these actions. Unfortunately you do not wish to contribute here anymore apparently, but if you wanted to continue there is at least now an active team that is portrayed that can help you. -withinfocus 08:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Rights removed on 1 Nov 2006. -withinfocus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perl (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 24 Sep 2004.

Cancelled. This user has had about 20 edits within the last year, and is therefore not eligible for de-adminiship in this manner. However I will send him a message, and see if he ever plans to return. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not cancelled since the user has not made the minimum number of accepted edits, even if we were using a hard cutoff (it's 17). Looking at this user's history, his/her editing truly stopped in September of 2004. Spare edits do not count as activity. This case is especially obvious where the user has provided no reasoning in past discussion for needing to be an admin and has quite clearly left the project. -withinfocus 22:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The policy says that inactivity requires at least 20 edits in the past year, and then goes on to say that that number is only a guideline. Either way, a user is allowed to be bearly-active under the policy, which is different from inactive. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's absurd for 16 edits over the course of two years to count as any sort of activity. That is clear-cut inactivity to me. -withinfocus 22:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This user was already brought up for de-adminship earlier this year, and he had opposed the action: http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=396174. I don't know that we will be able to "force" the matter if the user opposes, and it is my feeling that we probably won't be able to. Pushing the issue when we can't force such a change to be made will only make people angry at one another. A few admins who adamantly want to be both admins and inactive will slip through these cracks. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There is not a choice in this de-adminship since it is a matter of policy. If the admin contests it, he/she can apply to be an admin at a later date. It's all covered in the policy. -withinfocus 22:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Objection withdrawn. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rights removed on 1 Nov 2006. -withinfocus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reytan (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 22 Jul 2004.

This user has already consented to have his adminship tools removed, in a previous discussion:

http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=368347

--Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rights removed on 1 Nov 2006. -withinfocus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The bellman (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 4 Sep 2005.

I think it's a bit of a crazy policy to disadmin those who are inactive, since really adminship isn't that big a deal, but since it is the will of the community then, there you go. I hope sometime in the future to get active again in wikibooks so i'll porbably reapply then. Until then, have fun all you wikibookians. The bellman 09:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rights removed on 1 Nov 2006. -withinfocus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ThomasStrohmann (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 15 Dec 2003.

Sent him an email. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

ThomasStrohmann has agreed to voluntarily return his admin tools:

Yes, of course, I consent to having my adminship removed due to inactivity. I've been really busy lately (trying to finish my thesis this semester...), yet I'm still very fond of the Wikibooks project and hopefully I'll soon have more time to contribute content for some of the wikibooks.

--Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rights removed on 1 Nov 2006. -withinfocus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traroth (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 17 May 2004.

This user has already consented to have his tools removed, in the previous desysop request:

http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=400776

No sense dealing with this again. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rights removed on 1 Nov 2006. -withinfocus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yann (talk | email | contribs | logs)

Last non-outlying edit 27 Sep 2005.

I sent a message to his active fr.wiki account. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rights removed on 1 Nov 2006. -withinfocus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for bureaucratship

[edit] Whiteknight ( talk | email | contribs )

I want to test the waters a little bit, and request Bureaucratship. I've been a user here for a good amount of time, but I wouldn't by any means consider myself an "old timer" or anything like that. Wikibooks may not need many bureaucrats, but I don't think it is a good idea for us to only have one. User:Derbeth is a good contributor, a good vandal fighter, and a good bureaucrat. And when he finally gets those check user rights, i'm sure he'll be even better at what he does. Again however, no matter how great User:Derbeth is, he is still only one person, and in the interests of stability, I think that we need at least 2 or more bureaucrats, to ensure that this place functions smoothly.

I may not be as active as Derbeth is at fighting vandalism, but I certainly try to do my part. I am a very active contributor and I am active in matters of policy. However, I spend very little time working on the bookshelves, the community pages, templates, etc. I've found that I can't be all things to all people, and I have instead focused my attention on a limited number of projects. If people vote no, I will understand and won't take it personally. If this vote is opposed, There are other people that I have in mind to nominate for bureaucratship in the future.

I will be away on vacation for the next week, and will be unable to respond to questions or comments until then.

• Support Bureaucrats, as far as I'm aware, have one and only one function - to promote admin candidates if it is clear there is community consensus to do so - it is a very limited role, but one which the community will want only a highly trusted user to have. I have for a while thought that it would be better for us to have more than one active bureaucrat (it just makes sense to have cover available if needed). Whiteknight is willing to take on this role, and I would have no difficulty with him (or indeed any other currently active admin who volunteers) taking on this role, Jguk 18:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support No reason why not. Methinks we need a couple more bureaucrats around here anyway. BTW, Debereth's little secret is the IRC channel bot, which automatically catches most vanalisms :-p Check it out. --Dragontamer 19:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Cspurrier 23:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support He has been a very hard-working admin for a long time and I am impressed by his activity at WB:VFD. I don't remember any conflicts regarding his person. --Derbeth ^talk 21:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Mainly on the principle that we need to have more than one active bureaucrat. The time is ripe to "promote" another bureaucrat. One other "job duty" of a bureaucrat beyond admin duties is also to review 'bot requests, and if given my druthers, to have check user rights as well. The significance is mainly to demonstrate an "extra stripe" and show that a bureaucrat is widely respected within the community. Whiteknight has shown this ability, and has done many useful and productive things for Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 15:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  I can't say that I am active enough (yet) in fighting vandalism to warrant Check-user rights. I am, however, looking for more opportunities to become useful and productive. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 15:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Active user, does good work here. -Matt 16:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - having more than one active b'crat is a good idea. Gentgeen 23:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Krischik ^T 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Hard-working user who has done a lot of good for this project. Giving him another reason to spend more time here is a very good idea. --hagindaz 22:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support A talented versitle individual always willing to help you if he can. A3392 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Thank you for all your help; our class has learned and benefited, from all of your contributions.DorothyD 01:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 01:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I thank everybody for the support. I have been made a Bureaucrat by the stewards. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for CheckUser rights

[edit] Derbeth ( talk | email | contribs )

Because I regularly fight vandals I sometimes need to check IP of suspicious registered users. There are other situations when it is good to have possibility of such check - for example, if during a vote some people are likely to be sockpuppets (duplicate accounts of other users). Only stewards and users with CheckUsers rights (neither sysops nor bureaucrats have such rights by default) are able to see IP of registered users. Unfortunately stewards are sometimes unavailable, so I think we should have our own users with CheckUser rights.

meta:CheckUser Policy provides more information about the function. Important thing is that we need at least 25 votes of support for candidate to be chosen. It is hard, but with some determination we can reach this level - every vote counts so please take part in the vote. Second thing is that there should be two or more CheckUser-s at a project. Therefore, I strongly encourage you to support Uncle G, who is another candidate for this function. --Derbeth ^talk 21:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. --JMRyan 21:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Dragontamer 21:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Athrash | ^Talk 21:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Gentgeen 07:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Krischik ^T 10:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Xerol Oplan 11:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --kwhitefoot 11:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support We need at least somebody with this on Wikibooks right now. The 25 vote limit IMHO is way off base, but let's see if we can get that pulled together here.--Rob Horning 14:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support -Matt 17:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Kernigh 21:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Gabe Sechan 22:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I cannot support this in good faith. Derbeth has frequently blocked users without warning for isolated instances of childish vandalism. This is worse than RickK ever was at Wikipedia. Guanaco 03:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Weak oppose for giving CheckUser powers out on Wikibooks at this time.

  I think you are looking for revenge for my vote against you during your request for bureaucrat rights. Yes, I often block anonymous users without any warning, but only if they are open proxies. According to meta:Proxy blocking I have such right, I don't see any sense in disputing with such cases. Only two people complained to me about blocking them, in both cases I removed block as soon as I can. If you check special:log/block you will see that two mistakes in such number of blocks is just statistical necessity. --Derbeth ^talk 09:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  I am not looking for revenge. Again, you are assuming bad faith. In many cases, these vandals are not blocked for being open proxies, but merely for "vandalism" (see the block log). I am not opposed to long-term blocks of actual open proxies used for vandalism, but if they are not really open proxies, please block for a maximum of 24 hours and warn the user first. Yes, only two users complained about the blocks, but countless others may have left Wikibooks without contesting the block. Guanaco 22:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  I only block open proxies without waring, show me where I blocked normal IP's for long time. Just take a look at block log and [SORBS database - IMO they show I am innocent. Furthermore, block log shows that you are massively unblocking anonymous users - many of which are open proxies listed on SORBS. --Derbeth ^talk 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  You blocked 70.16.233.110 for "vandalism". That user inserted "bitch" into a page and reverted it one minute later after realizing that it actually appeared on the module. And you are lynching Negroes. I unblocked the dozens of users because they had either been blocked a long time ago, and the block should have expired, or because they were blocked for "vandalism" (not "open proxy or SORBS") without warning.02:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  I probably was in a hurry and forgot to add "open proxy". Nonetheless, this IP is open proxy according to SORBS. Sometimes I just forget to add open proxy because I'm blocking many vandals simultaneously. --Derbeth ^talk 09:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  When you blocked the IP, it had already been delisted from SORBS. It is a dynamic Verizon IP. Guanaco 16:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Derbeth is helpful and trustworthy, and with the amount of vandalism that he fights, it only makes sense to give him the power to fight vandals better. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 05:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- As the tricks vandals use become more and more sophisticated we need people who can act quick and nip problems in the bud. --MShonle 23:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. 25 votes be damned. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. Just to indicate that I am aware of this potentially useful tool – and hope never to witness the need for it. David Kernow 20:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- John N. 13:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose -- Derbeth has a very aggressive attitude (he makes personal attacks on contributors User_talk:Marshman#Basic Ecology Contents) that makes his acquisition of any special rights here a potential detriment to Wikibooks. - marsh 19:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC). If you want examples of how he will treat you, look at his comments under de-sysoping above - marsh
• Strongly Oppose comment: I've only been at wikibooks for a few days. User Derbeth has violated WB:DP. He has p a speedy delete on the article How To Ride The Bus. In turn because of the way wikibooks is set-up, unavoidably, the article was sent to WB:VFD. However according WB:DP no article should be nominated for vfd for at least 1 week. WB:DP suggest, for new users, such as me, we should wait up to a month before nominate a VFD. I made a vote. And now he says it doesn't count. How the heck am I supposed to vote? The worst thing is. He made me, the new user, do his dirty work. Do we really want someone that can't even loyally represent wikibooks, let alone himself, to have such power. Notwithstanding, and perhaps irrelevant, he is stalling on his refutations in the delete discussion. Because of this I think he encourages bad feelings on wikibooks. Think about it. I do 4 to 5 edits to a new article and he is nominating it for a speedy delete. He encourage people to violate rules. Frankly I feel that he is only going to use this privelege to take advantage of more people. --72.57.8.2I5 07:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Two other users described your work as complete rubbish and not a textbook - both qualify it to be speedy deleted. You are funny trying to show that I broke any rules - in my opinion this book is a target for speedy deletion, but I haven't deleted it (although I could). --Derbeth ^talk 09:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not the place for discussion about this, but maybe you should visit WB:NPA before posting offensive material such as this comment. -Matt 18:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Talking about WB:NPA, I decided to censor a few stuff from both 72.57.8.2I5 and Derbeth. Check my edit corresponding to my signature date if you wanna see my specific cuts. My feelings on Derbeth are very high; he catches vandals and reverts their edits faster than I can say "wow", and he hangs out on the IRC vandal-detector channel all day long (perhaps the 2 go hand-in-hand :-p) . He obviously cares much about Wikibooks and am shocked that someone would have any bad feelings to him. Second, proposed policies such as WB:DP in Wikibooks are not rules, or even official yet. It says so right on the top of the page. Finally, you should be glad that Derbeth at least put up a speedy-delete tag on instead of deleting it outright. --Dragontamer 02:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Allefant 17:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support By my understanding, this is the only way to stop registered users from coming back under a new name, even when the fact that they are vandalizing is obvious. In my opinion, that's being way to protective, so you have my support. --Hagindaz 13:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support We need a checkuser baddly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tfurey1 (talk • contribs) .
• Support. Denying a sysop checkuser rights just because it could be abused would be like calling Superman unsafe but only taking away his heat vision. Either we trust them with everything, or nothing. Garrett^Talk 05:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support RobinH 12:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I hadn't voted because the outcome seemed obvious. Apparently 25 supports are needed. Here's one more. Brian Brondel 13:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kellen ^T 10:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Derbeth should definatelly be able to do this. Very useful tool, especially considering how easy it is to create an account.Dolive35 10:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Jguk 06:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Junkeater 19:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Cspurrier 22:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support AlbertCahalan 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. The stewards have given User:Derbeth checkuser rights. Thanks to everbody for voting. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jguk ( talk | email | contribs )

While I have been antagonistic toward this user, I do think he has done quite a bit of good for Wikibooks, and I would like to provide an alterate nomination for Checkuser privileges besides User:Uncle G, as it apears Uncle G has dropped off the radar as of late. Certainly I don't see that this user would abuse checkuser rights and is not going to be the cause of blatant vandalism that is usually the target of a checkuser scan. Please support me with this user so we can have a "second" user to assist with checkuser scans on Wikibooks. BTW, count this nomination as one of the votes for support. --Rob Horning 11:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. I know what good User:Jguk has done around here, and I know his efforts in fighting vandalism. Also, I realize that checkuser privledges aren't worthwhile unless the user is active, and User:Uncle G is barely active as of late. However, I feel that in past couple weeks, User:Jguk has acted too rashly on a number of different occasions. Regardless of justification, actions that are too heavy-handed make regular readers and contributors weary and upset. Now, If User:Jguk does manage to gather a solid number of votes here, I will assume that the actions that I perceive as being rash were not considered as such by the community, and I will change my vote accordingly. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 15:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  For myself, the acceptance or not of checkuser privileges is independent of this user's admin activities and should not be considered a referendum on his actions. For myself, I believe that checkuser privileges should be extended to every bureaucrat on every project, and having to go through this silly vote simply annoys me to no end. I have made my opinion on this known to the powers that be, and the supposed abuse of checkuser scans is something I can't see really being a problem even in the worst possible situation. This is just another tool to help fight vandalism, and something we desperately need on Wikibooks, especially since the software is now written to verify users. Until now, this is a Wikipedia-only tool, and something that has been widely acknowledged as something that should be permitted for non-Wikipedia projects. I find it unfortunate that he has declined his nomination for this, but I can understand why he did so and thank him for the reasonable reply on this matter. --Rob Horning 16:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I very much appreciate Rob's nomination, and in particular the spirit in which he has made it. As Whiteknight indirectly notes, I am a wikibookian who likes to be bold and to update and change things when I believe it is better for wikibooks to do so (and in the belief that I make far many more correct decisions than I make wrong ones). Whilst I would hope that no wikibookian would believe that I would abuse CheckUser rights if I had them, I do appreciate that some users would have concern if someone with a reputation for being bold has those rights. Therefore I'd like to respectfully decline Rob's nomination of me. I would add that, if another currently active admin was nominated, or nominated himself, for CheckUser rights, I would support him, Jguk 18:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support (yeah I know he didn't accept, but it's silly to not grant this) AlbertCahalan 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• I certainly did not mean to disparage you. Anytime there is a policy discussion or a vote, the same couple "power users" seem to weigh in, and most of the general wikibooks public doesn't voice any opinion. Look at VFD, or even on this page, where the same 5 or 6 people consistantly weigh in, and votes are settled with less then that number of total votes cast. My point with all this is that if the community in general dislikes a particular user, we are unlikely to hear about it, because most people don't voice their opinions on such matters. With checkuser rights however, we need an inordinately large number of votes to pass. This means that the community at large does need to pay attention to the vote, and voice an opinion one way or another. If your actions have ruffled the feathers around here, it will come out during the vote. If however everybody likes you and appreciates your work around here, it will become clearly apparent. I think that you should reconsider your nomination here, because we do need a second checkuser, and your name features prominantly when discussing vandal fighters. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 17:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User declined nomination. -withinfocus 01:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whiteknight ( talk | email | contribs )

I am listing myself here for a number of reasons, and I hope that nobody assumes that I am simply trying to grab for additional rights/responsibilities here. I have posted an official request that User:Derbeth be granted checkuser rights, and meta:Requests_for_permissions#en.wikibooks.org that request is on hold] because official wikimedia policy still requires that a project have at least two checkusers, or none at all. To become a checkuser, wikimedia policy requires that a user accumulate at least 25 votes of support. User:Derbeth has 26 affirmative votes (by my count) currently, so we need at least one more. User:Uncle G had several votes, but not enough, and support for him seems to have decreased because he has been less active lately then he used to be. User:Jguk refused his nomination entirely (despite my urging to the contrary), and User:Cspurrier has only attracted 2 comments.

In my time here at wikibooks, I think that I have shown myself to be active, trustworthy, and helpful. I have many opinions, but I try not to be petulant. I have not been nearly as active at combatting vandalism as some other users, but I have started utilizing IRC and the recent changes list to be more active in that area. I do think however, that i could attract the necessary 25 votes, and therefore bring checkuser rights to the wikibooks project. Some people might say that wikibooks doesn't need checkuser rights, or that checkuser rights shouldn't exist at all, but according to the vote count for User:Derbeth, current community opinion appears to be in favor of these rights. If it is any consolation, I am not one to abuse such rights. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 04:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I think it's about this gets resolved, as it's been floating around for 8 months, and both users are active and probably will be for a while. It's not as much a pressing need as a matter of preemptive action, and also a tool that may be needed under the newly proposed rules for voting, should sockpuppetry ever become an issue. Xerol Oplan 04:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - We clearly need admins with checkuser tools, and I have faith in Whiteknight's discretion in using them. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I have long time suggested that all bureaucrats, as a matter of simply becoming a bureaucrat, can and ought to be given checkuser privileges. Those WMF board members that are seriously concerned about potential abuses due to lax standards for bureaucrats should instead seek to tighten the standards for bureaucrats instead, as the arguments go both ways. It is about time that we get somebody here on Wikibooks to get this accomplished, and for me it isn't that big of a deal. Even if you tried deliberately to abuse checkuser privilages, I contend that there is little that a user could do that would be of permanent harm, as I've expressed numerous times on Foundation-l over this issue. The 25 necessary votes is simply BS, and proof that some individuals think there is only Wikipedia and a few loose cannons thinking they are involved in other projects. --Rob Horning 13:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Let's get a second user voted in. -withinfocus 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support AlbertCahalan 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Whiteknight has been a tremendous help to our Human Physiology book, which is a class project. He has been very attentive to our newbie questions, has provided us with several valuable tips, has helped format our book to make it better, and has actively fought vandalism (he thwarted a major attack just today). I support increasing his admin privileges. Provophys 21:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support Whiteknight has helped everybody in our physiology class make changes and corrections to our chapters that we are writing for our grade. He knows all the best ways to do things and he has made our book a lot better than it would have been without him. I support him fully and think that he should have more administrative privileges. Thanks Whiteknight! Melissasmith 00:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Melissasmith

• Support Mr. Knight has been very quick to assist us newbies in wiki script. He has always been prompt to answer questions and has taken the time to help us make our book the best it could be. We owe him brownies and cute single girl phone numbers .... --BrendaJohnson 02:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support WhiteKnight has been instrumental in the development of our book Human Physiology. He has continually been there to keep all of us rookies from drowning. He even saved us from the shark that invaded our little pool(book) and saved some authors from public humiliation. I feel that he is a great asset to wiki and should be given and trusted with any access that will help make these books better, to protect content and thwart vandals.Gartoly 04:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• SupportThanks for all you help with our book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Princess8107 (talk • contribs) .

• Support Whitenight has been very helpful in writing our phisiology book. We appreciate his help and willingness to answer any questions.--Jtervortn 20:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• SupportWhiteKnight has been a very resourceful "tool" for students such as myself. This is all new to me, and he has been willing to offer information and pictures to use at my discression. He has been a great help in keeping this book professional and is a great mentor to all. Thanks WhiteKnight!Coronagirl 23:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Krischik ^T 11:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support WhiteKnight has helped us alot 204.113.66.11 19:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Unfortunately, this unsigned vote doesn't count. Votes need to have usernames, not IP addresses attached. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support Whiteknight has helped us a great deal. We are working on a textbook Human Physiology that could be used by thousands of physiology students in the future and has been an interesting learning experience. Whiteknight has been very informative and appears to always be online. This week every chapter in our book was vandalized which was very discouraging to some of us but whiteknight fixed the problem almost immediately, very reassuring to us that our book will last. Thanks for you help Whiteknight. Bigsmoot 19:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support Whiteknight has been a huge help to our physiology book. He has helped everyone in class on all the subjects covered. He's as much a part of this project as our class. Thanks.--Jami_7 19:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Whiteknight has been a great help to our physiology class.Cody M. 19:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support Whiteknight has been extremely helpful with our Wikibook project. Brentwaldrop 20:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- Gerard Foley 21:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Swift 22:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Derbeth ^talk 09:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• support anthonymitchell
• Support --Pete Whiteknight helped me combat vandalism even before we had ever spoken and has, since, helped me to become a better Wikibooks user by answering a lot of my "newbie" questions. He is, in my opinion, a wonderful administrator and should have checkuser privileges. 13:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support --jesse Whiteknight is Awesome.

• Support --leilijohnson Whiteknight has been a great help and watchdog for our physiology "book" project. I am thankful for his support and protection.

• SupportTrisha83 19:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. The stewards have given me checkuser rights. Thanks to everybody who voted. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wur-dene ( talk | email | contribs )

I know this user from Wikipedia (where he's under another name!), where he's a good contributor and fights vandals. As he said on Whiteknight's talk page, he's a computer technician - and he has access to confidential data - like CheckUser deals with. meta:CheckUser Policy provides more information about the function.

I think he'd be an asset to the team here, using CU when it's needed. --Swyllutut 21:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - I'm not even sure if this is a sincere nomination. Needs a lot more activity here. -withinfocus 22:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. For some reason, alot of vandalism surrounds this user, and he isn't particularly active either. I doubt this is sincere, and the user who made the nomination appears to have created an account simply for the purposes of submitting this RFA. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - I am not familiar at all with this user and just because he has been active on Wikipedia does not imply anything with regards to activity on Wikibooks. There are plenty of people here on Wikibooks that have the technical expertise necessary to do the interpretations found with checkuser scans. Besides, I don't think it is as big of a deal to do the interpretation as is made out on the meta m:Checkuser page. I also believe you ought to have the same equivalent level of trust to become a bureaucrat if you want to have this option turned on. --Rob Horning 09:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Inactive, very low edit count. Gerard Foley 21:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose How do you know its the same user on Wikipedia? It could possibly be an imposter, users should have much more activity in order to prove their trusted enough, you can't just go for adminship if your good on wikipedia Minun ^Spiderman 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Denied. There is community concensus against this action. Some of the reasons listed are that this user is not particularly active here at wikibooks, and that this nomination appears to not even be sincere. I will archive this discussion in about a week. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)