Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Cyp

-Administrator
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: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. -within focus 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. -within focus 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. -within focus 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. -within focus 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 Requests_for_permissions in order to effect these de-adminships. -within focus 05:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All of the below users have now been de-sysopped. This discussion will be archived soon. -within focus 16:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

-Administrator
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 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. -within focus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)