Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Omegatron

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.

I'm an admin on en. I've been writing in wikibooks: Electronics since March 2004. I just use it for spam rollbacks and deleting my own experiments. - Omegatron 15:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support MShonle 17:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Besides a good history of edits, this user pitched in to deal with User:Gumba gumba. If Omegatron had admin rights, he could have been far more effective. AlbertCahalan 21:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note, this user was admin'd, but not recorded here. - Aya ^T C 21:29, 7 August 2005 (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 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)[]