Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Darklama

+Administrator

In a similar move as the one above, I would like to nominate User:Darklama for adminship. He has over 1200 contributions here, and has been active on the staff lounge, and in matters of policy. He has also worked to fix double-redirects, in the process having to mark pages for deletion instead of being able to delete them himself. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Since you are the second person to think I would make a good admin (the first having offered to nominate me himself), even though I'm not so sure of it myself, I will accept this nomination, as a vote of confidence in my ability to be a good admin. I understand the concern over inactive admins and see it as no big deal to have adminship removed, just as being an admin is suppose to be no big deal. So if in the future, I'm not using it, just take it, its no big deal to me. I will also try to indicate my inactivity and nominate myself for deadminship if in the future I can't be as active as required. --darklama 14:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[]
The requirements to be "active" are pathetically small. I wouldn't worry about them, if I were you. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[]
I'm not worried about not being active enough. This is about taking the extra step of nominating myself for deadminship, if I know in advance that I won't be around to meet the pathetically small "active" requirements, that is if I know I will be inactive in advance, because its really no big deal to be or not to be an admin. For example if I know I've become too busy with life to contribute to Wikibooks and I managed to find small amount of time to say so, I'd nominate myself for deadminship just to ease the process of having to vote on it. If on the other hand I were to be too busy to do that, I'd also probably be too busy to respond to an email, notifing me of the deadminship process. Sorry if this is a bit confusing. Its just a bit of forward thinking that may never come up :)
I've been told I can be a bit too direct, modest and humble. The only thing I'm worried about, I've decided to let other people decide for themselvies, whether or not I am a good canidate for adminship, since it may be those exact qualities that cause unnecessary concern. --darklama 17:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Strong Oppose -- I don't think darklama has a good feel for the spirit of the project, in that he's shows a great deal of interest in limiting the scope of contributions, while having made relatively few substantial contributions himself. He does have an admirable passion for cleanup work, but in more than one instance has moved around a lot of pages without asking the main authors of the books. He takes part in a great number of policy debates, but always in the imperative mode, which causes me to be concerned about what he would do with the administrator's tools. As much as I feel that we desparately need a larger contingent of administrators, I feel quite strongly that he is an inappropriate choice.
I do consider darklama to be a man who always tries to act in good faith. I think he needs to dedicate himself to writing for a while, rather than doing cleanup jobs. I think he needs to experience the sense of pride and attachment that comes from doing good work on a good book (or even good articles... I'm sure there are plenty of articles on wikipedia that he could contribute to, watch, defend from vandals, etc.... wikipedia is (in my view) just a big wikibook, and there's lots of work to do there if he can't find a project here). My concern is that he tends to involve himself in projects he's not interested in and make a lot of changes without any apparent sense of the damage he may be doing or the feelings of the authors. We need libertarians, not censors, and darklama's approach to things (from my observations) tend toward an outsider's minimalism, rather than an insider's impulse to create great books.
I really like darklama in a lot of ways, but his dictatorial approach to things makes me very nervous about offering him tha admin tools. I would need to see a bit more maturity as an author (not just a cleanup guy) before I could honestly say that he's a "trusted member of the community", because this "community" is a community of authors. --SB_Johnny | talk 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[]
  • I have to admit that I am shocked by this vote. I expected you to say...essentially the exact opposite of what you did say. Darklama has seen his share of drama here (notably the scuffle with User:Panic2k4), but I would argue that none of these problems were caused by Darklama so much as they were caused as territorial authors who want to maintain strict control of their own pet projects. He is a well-meaning contributor, he is bold about making improvements in books, and even when he did get into disagreements with other authors, he handled them in a calm, mature way. I don't think that there should be any requirement about authorship, because admin tools are not tools for authoring. Admin tools are used to aid people who perform cleanup tasks, and Darklama performs cleanup tasks. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[]
It's not so much authorship per se, but having a feel for authorship. The "Panic problem" isn't the issue, it's more the renaming and restructuring of other books without asking around first about why the structure is so strange, and even marking all the redirects for deletion when it isn't clear if the authors are aware of the changes. In the water book, he was asked to undo all of his changes by the author, but didn't do it (though to be fair I'm not certain that he can, since the redirects were modified with tags after being made). He also refers to a lot of non-admintool related cleanup tasks as administrative tasks (which they aren't), which makes me think that he sees adminning as something other than what it is.
He's a good contributor, and I don't think he's going anywhere... I'd just rather wait a bit before he gets syssoped. He was badly bitten as a newcomer, and my suggestion that he do some more content work first is mostly because I think he needs to get a feel for the joy of wikibooks, rather than the enforcement-oriented approach he takes to things currently. IOW, I think he has a tendency to assume bad faith (and he has good reason to do so), and that can cause trouble. Adminship is about helping people write good books, not about defending wikibooks from whatever it is it needs defending from. Let's not look for trouble... it'll find us, and when it does, we haven't had too much difficulty handling it. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Now in Support -- I've chatted with him quite a bit on IRC, and I think he's ready now. He's also the sort that will help with the big backlogs we have around here, which are causing considerable aggravation in certain users. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[]

*Oppose -- I also think it is to soon and most important the user is directly involved in disputes, and so, I also admit to be "shocked by this vote". I don't doubt the darklama intentions and have taken some joy on the active debate we are involved, even if given the Adminship I doubt that he would use it in an intentional bad way, we agree on many things and he really demonstrates an active interest in contributing to wikibooks, but since we have still a limited set of policies in active status, Adminship should only be given to more seasoned users, and preferably users that start a project on wikibooks or contribute content to a work for some time, and have a real invested interest on the community in itself. I must say also that this vote is not based only on the "Panic problem" :) (I probably should have avoided this vote, but I still can't believe that it was proposed, since it was a given that at least one user would oppose it, the logic of the proposal could be in itself be seen in a very dark light, but I think that was not Whiteknight intention), but even if the small set of Amins rights are given in this way, and with this timing, we as a community will only be inviting trouble...--Panic 03:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[]

    • It certainly wasn't my intention to try and reward User:Darklama because he got into a fight with you! I perhaps could have nominated you as well (which would have kept the playing field level), but User:Darklama has been very active in policy discussions lately, and that's one of the things that I am most interested in when I make such nominations. I can certainly understand what you are saying, although I haven't changed my opinions of User:Darklama, nor have I changed my opinions that he probably should become an admin. Of course, one vote, especially if it is cast against the overwhelming tide, is certainly not enough for the motion to pass. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Support. I've looked at this user's edit history. It shows a long period of activity on this Wiki. Considerably more than some current admins and this Wiki really could do with some people who want to do the cleaning work. If ever people cease to be active without explanation who have these tools I shall be unhappy but there is work to do. All admin contributions are seen so they can be judged. I guess this will stagnate like other things but if this pushes things along - fine --Herby talk thyme 13:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[]
Darklama is now a sysop. --Derbeth talk 21:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[]

+CheckUser

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

-Admin

Scrolling through the Wikibooks:Administrator page since I was quite bored, I scrolled past User:Darklama. I have never seen Darklama in the Recent Changes Board, so I decided to scroll past his/her contributions and logs, and haven't seen any logs or contributions from this user for over a year now. As per a comment QuiteUnusual stated at my talk page, "Nobody will be de-admining you unless you are completely inactive as both editor and admin for a year", I think that Darklama has been inactive to the point that the user's administrator rights should be revoked for inactivity. Thank you. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[]

Left a note on darlama's user talk. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[]
Inactive since 20 June 2014 on all projects, so meets the criteria for the removal of rights. On hold until 23 January 2016 to allow Darklama to respond. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[]
Over Jan 23 btw @QuiteUnusual --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[]
Thanks for reminding me, I will ask a Steward to remove the rights (I can't do it, because although I'm a Steward I'm not allowed to act on a home project). QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 08:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[]
Request raised at Meta here. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 08:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[]
@QuiteUnusual: I thought we'd made you a bureaucrat on en.wb, which should give you the authority to toggle Darklama's admin bit independent of stewardship. (Am I remembering wrongly?) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[]
Yep, you are wrong! Yes, I'm a 'crat, but no I cannot remove admin rights. There are only a small number of very large projects where the 'crats can remove the admin rights (listed at Meta:Bureaucrat#Removing_access). QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[]
I guess en.wn skewed my expectations. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[]
Now showing as Done on meta. Bit of a shame; he was with us for a long time. Chazz (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[]

I remember him back at en.wikiversity during my "noobish" days. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[]

  • I oppose the removal of permissons, maybe too late. The last admin action is from 7 June 2014 per Special:Log/Darklama, less than 2 years ago. Especially small projects with small numbers of admins should be very hesitant to remove admins for inactivity. In general, inactivity is harmless while bad activity is harmful. An inactive admin can again be bitten by the wiki bug, and that's for the good of the project. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[]
Do you realize that Darklama is already demoted from adminship for inactivity? --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[]
Too bad. Let's try better next time around. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[]
Wikibooks policy, pointedly enacted, says "Administrator rights will be removed if the editor is inactive for a year." Part of the point, as I understand it, is that if someone reaches out to an administrator for help, the person they reach out to shouldn't be nonresponsive. When one of these comes up, before removing privs we leave a note on their user page and wait for a response. As we did here. That note was left three months ago and Darklama still hasn't responded.

On en.wn the expiry policy has a "fast track" provision for restoring privs removed only for inactivity, two users with similar or greater privs agree, and "no doubts expressed nor expected" for a couple of days (yonder). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[]
The quoted policy is a bad policy, IMHO, for the reason I stated. I do realize you acted in good faith and according to policy, but one that is IMHO bad. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[]
I feel diametrically the opposite. Do we really want to wait a full year? Granted that a small project like WB should hold onto admins if they can, an admin who has done nothing for a year is arguably gone already, and removing privileges is only formalizing that. IMAO, an admin who has done nothing for as long as six months is arguably no longer actually an admin. Even small wikis need admins who will respond to problems in a timely fashion. Keeping admins-in-name-only is a disservice to the users of the wiki. That said, I would be in favour of a WN-like accelerated reinstatement policy; if they want to come back and are willing to be true admins again, why not? Chazz (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[]
Keeping admins-in-name-only is not really a disservice. For one thing, it does not cost anything. Keeping is not an action that requires human resources to perform, desysopping is. By my evidence-free estimate, an admin on a wiki break is more likely to return if admin rights were not removed. In the English Wiktionary, we are keeping inactive admins for many years, to no detriment that I know of. Removing a privilege is not formalizing anything; it is removing a privilege. It is removing the technical capacity to do a particular class of actions. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[]
Besides the cost of users looking for help and getting no response, every account with advanced privs is a security vulnerability. A widely under-appreciated vulnerability, I've noticed. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Admins are there to administer, not to help; and User_talk:Darklama does not show any request for help, so this seems rather hypothetical. I don't believe there is any serious security issue; I have never seen any evidence that there is. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[]
Seems to me that with a rapid reinstatement policy, the possible (if it exists) re-entrancy problem could be easily resolved also. But I'd also like to point out that this is not the correct place for this debate... doesn't the administration page have an unstable branch for this sort of thing? Chazz (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[]
If any policy change were going to be proposed, the place would be the proposals reading room. I admit, I'd much rather discuss there a fast-track resumption policy, which I suspect we might get widespread agreement on, rather than a weakening of the expiry conditions with substantial opposition and strong feelings on both sides. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[]
My position on de-adminship from inactivity has changed, I support it now not because it is the best solution but because it is the only one we have, though I would strongly object to a fast-track resumption policy. Note for instance that Darklama's account (as is) wouldn't be eligible for administrative duty per our policy (changes to it since then to present day). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 00:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[]
There have actually been numerous cases on other projects of accounts with advanced permissions being compromised. It is not just a question of someone being inactive and having the rights removed - they were unresponsive to repeated emails and talk page notices. It is bad practice to leave rights in place that are not needed, not being used and are allocated to an account that may no longer be under control (and certainly isn't being monitored should it be compromised). A suspected compromise leads to a global account lock which is far worse and harder to recover. On the subject of two years activity, that is the global policy for projects without their own policy. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 07:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[]
Thank you for your explanation. Nonetheless, let me point out that no evidence has been presented. As my evidence, I submit that I know of no problem with a compromised account in the English Wiktionary, and yet we do not desysop admins for inactivity after two years, as can be verified by checking the activity of the current admins. We recently desysopped some admins with more than 5 years of inactivity but not as a matter of policy but rather via ad-hoc votes; these desysopped accounts were not compromised. I think the two years in the global policy mentioned are too short a time frame, but it is still better than the one year used on Wikibooks. I think the discussed Wikibooks policy--how was it enacted?--is a contributing factor to there being so few active admins since the ex-admins are not exposed to the temptation of returning. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[]
If I recall correctly, there have been only two cases of de-admin for inactivity where the admin couldn't be contacted. All of the others either self-requested it or when contacted volunteered to give up their rights so I don't think this is a major reason in not having many admins here. We actually get hardly any volunteers - pretty much anyone of long standing with a record of good edits would pass an RFA in my opinion, but nobody volunteers. One thing to bear in mind regarding the global policy is that it was established to deal with very small projects that often have only one or two permanent admins. Some of these had bureaucrats that were inactive for the best part of a decade. These very small projects (e.g., ones with < 10 edits a day, in some cases < 10 a month) are monitored by a small number of Stewards and Global Sysops. In these cases spotting a compromised account, or an admin gone bad, could take a long time. While all actions are reversible they can require a lot of work. For example, if I use Nuke I can delete up to 500 pages in one go. To restore them requires me to go into each deleted page one at a time and restore it - which takes a good 30 seconds and several clicks per page. Therefore, a rogue admin's behaviour could take months of effort to fix. On en.wt you have a much busier community and this kind of thing would be spotted by another admin or an editor almost immediately. I wouldn't object to a change to the policy here to make it easy to regain surrendered rights due to inactivity - e.g., reapplied by a bureaucrat on request as long as there is no evidence of account compromise. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[]

On a side note, I find this kind of worrying on two counts. Did anyone think to wonder what had happened? A look at Darklama's global contributions show his edits virtually stopping dead on 20 June 2014; there is a single edit on EN:WP on 25 July 2014, and apart from that, utter and complete Wikisilence. Which points up my two concerns: what happened to him? And why does nobody seem to care? Chazz (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[]

How does it seem like we don't care? --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[]
Would have thought that obvious. Discussion has been purely about revocation of privileges. Nobody has suggested trying to get in touch -- not even me, I'll grant, but I have no way of even knowing where to start. Nobody until now has voiced any question about why he's gone silent, or even has bothered to check how widespread his silence is. This entire discussion seems... well, seems to be about Darklama's office, very little about Darklama. Chazz (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[]
This is a page devoted specifically to discussing privs. It shouldn't be surprising that our discussion here has centered on that, with limited outward drift from there. I don't know of any way to reach darklama outside of wikimedia; there are some wikimedians whose outside lives I know something about so that I could investigate if they disappeared from wikimedia, but darklama isn't one of them. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 02:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]
@Chazz:. I emailed (via the "email this user" facility) and I checked on IRC where he used to be very active - no sign. I share your concern, but per Pi zero I have no way of finding him off wiki as he never revealed any clues to his real life identity. Unfortunately the "email this user" facility does not show if the email bounces or not (although a system admin could tell) so we can't even tell if the email account is active. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 08:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[]
This article is issued from Wikibooks. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.