Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Marshman

-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)

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&mdash;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  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 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&mdash;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  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&mdash;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 ).
 * 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: . 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.'

-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 15 March 2006.


 * Comment -- I left him a note on his Wikipedia talk, but he hasn't edited there since June '06, so my guess is that he's disappeared entirely. -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The last time his name came up here on this request for deadminship, he did come back fighting and tried to defend himself. Life has taken a turn for this individual, and even if admin rights are taken away, I want to let him know that he is certainly welcome to come back to the Wikibooks community, and getting admin rights again ought to be trivial and procedural only.  He certainly is one of the early defenders of Wikibooks and clearly used the admin tools to the benefit of this project.  --Rob Horning 13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know Marshman (his activity was before my time), but I definitely second Robert's notion, and hope all of our long-MIA administrators will come back some day, if and when they have time for us. -- SB_Johnny | talk 21:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I guess if this is still policy then we have to enforce it but I still don't see much point in deactivating admins due to non-activity. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 21:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This issue has been heavily discussed and was decided by the community to be appropriate action. The policy section explains this. -within focus 21:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Heavily discussed is an understatement. Usually about every six to nine months this issue comes up and is re-evaluated, and the discussion has gone both ways (removing or keeping inactive admins), depending on who was involved with the discussion.  Very strong arguments were made for both schools of thought.  --Rob Horning 00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, the standing policy of removing inactive admins has been held. Please, let's not have a discussion of the policy on this page; this section is merely an application of policy and any comments on the policy itself should happen on Wikibooks talk:Administrators. Stewards will view this section when they de-admin this user and to make matters easy I'd like to avoid a long section of discussion that could distract their eye from the task that needs to be completed. If you guys want to add more insight to the issue I'm all for it (though not personally interested) but just don't do it here. Thanks. -within focus 13:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The important part is that nobody is calling into question Marshman's value as a wikibookian. I have little doubt in my mind that anybody who has received admin tools here in the past was worthy of them. This isn't any kind of a punishment, and it really shouldn't be viewed as anything negative. That he felt he needed to "defend" himself against his earlier nomination is a shame, because it wasnt supposed to be an offensive action. A much better reaction likely would have been "No, i'm not active here, even if i want to be, and so i dont need admin tools right now." Of course, I can understand being upset if you don't understand the situation well enough to know how benign the nomination really was. The argument could be made, of course, that he would have felt better about it if he were active enough to really know and understand the policy and the thought that went into it. Marshman was likely a very valuable wikibookian (i cannot speak from experiance since i never interacted with him), but we ask that people who don't use the tools give them back. If he comes back to this project (and the hope is universal that he does) he can reapply for the tools without prejudice. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose and oppose the policy section as well. That said, I fully expect my concerns to be dismissed because they are apparently opposite of the current consensus.  --Iamunknown 06:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a voting process. Making such a statement here is inappropriate and you fully know (especially from my above comments) that this is not the place to discuss policy. Making a statement and then saying "I fully expect my concerns to be dismissed" suggests that you simply want to preach your opinion. Discuss this at the policy talk page, not here (I'm tired of having to say that), and yet realize this issue has been debated heavily and I can assure you essentially all points of view had been addressed before enacting this and its removal is highly unlikely based on my defense alone among many others'. All the above comments will be stricken on April 20 in time for Steward action. -within focus 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you're so irked by my opinion, Withinfocus. You should be comforted to know that I have read the page, so your edit summary is rather moot.  --Iamunknown 16:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not offended by your opinion; I'm tired of repeating the same things over and over. Your opinion is not being discussed here (my point exactly), it's that you chose to share an opinion here which is what's important. I don't have any control over your opinion nor should I, but I do dislike seeing it displayed at the wrong location. That's all I'm saying and I'm not really sure what my "edit summary" entails either, but this discussion can continue at WB:ADMIN should you choose to pursue it. -within focus 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All other 'requests' on this page contain discussions and votes. What's the point of listing these requests for deadminship if we can't discuss them?  People are far more likely to see comments on this page than on Wikibooks_talk:Administrators so why not talk on this page?  Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 12:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that this is not a policy discussion page! This will in fact be a request to the stewards to de-admin this user when the time comes. This section really serves as preliminary notification of the action that will take place and is not a discussion section for the policy invoked. Comments can be left that mention the user's past actions or whereabouts but the only "real" discussion is reserved for the admin in question coming back to discuss their request for adminship at a later date. You don't have a discussion in a more prominent place just because you can. Someone who has problems with the policy should be watching the policy. I can't be any more clear than that. If you have further misunderstanding, please address it on my talk page. -within focus 20:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone who has problems with the policy should be watching the policy (....) If you have further misunderstanding, please address it on my talk page. Thank you for the ad hominem arguments, withinfocus.  Instead of focusing on my arguments that administrators should not be desysopped barring extreme circumstances, you have focused on my person.  Unfortunately such an argument is logically fallacious and wrong.  --Iamunknown 02:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hah, okay. I've been discussing people this entire time, so I don't know why now was the time to whip out the encyclopedia to make an insinuation that implies supposed "fallacies" with what I'm saying when I'm directly on topic. I haven't really said anything new: discuss policy on a policy page if you have issues. Yes, you, a person. I'm not sure how I can avoid talking about people when mentioning discussion. I'm definitely not focusing on your policy arguments here because, let me say it again, this is not the place to discuss it and that's what policy pages are for. You are making an incorrect decision by choosing to argue with me here and not at the policy page. I offered to take any problems you have to my talk page so the rest of the community doesn't have this on their watch lists, or you can argue with me on the policy page, but this RFA section is complete now that Marshman's rights have been removed. I plan on archiving this shortly, with or without further comment. Here or here. -within focus 12:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)