Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Eclecticology

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)[]

(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)[]

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)[]

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)[]

I was previously an admin (when I hadn't even asked for it), and it was revoked for lack of use. Now that I have a project to work on in philately it would be handy to have it back ... mostly to clean up my own mistakes in naming images.

• Oppose - Nice to see you back, but I feel you need to have some real activity here first. You didn't make a single logged admin function in your previous stay. The tools may be handy but I don't think that's a sufficient reason to give them to you. After you have a few months of real activity here and are an active participant in community affairs, then I'll support you. The main reason your tools were removed was because you likely don't know many of the policies here anymore and might use the tools inappropriately or even worse dangerously. An existing admin can currently help you with image matters instead. -withinfocus 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]
• Oppose. Although I certainly don't want this to seem like a personal attack of any kind. We've developed relatively strict requirements (at least in comparison to other projects) for gaining adminship, and (for better or worse) it is no longer as easy as to say "i would like them" in order to get admin tools. By my count, you have just shy of 200 edits, which is a respectable amount, but people have been turned down in the past because they have had "only" 500 or less. We like to see potential admins as having (a) a demonstratable understanding of the relevant policies (administrator policy, deletion policy, user block policy, etc), (b) a certain level of activity and participation, and (c) an intention to remain an active part of this community for an extended period of time. Considering your long time involvment in this and other projects, it certainly isn't an issue of your trustworthyness or your ability. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[]

Closed as failed as no further votes have been received in the past two weeks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 00:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[]