Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Perl

+Administrator
Pearl is a great contributor to the English Wikipedia and is cool under fire. --mav 06:23, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I accept this nomination. I promise to use my powers only for good. (I am an admin and bureaucrat on the maori language wikipedia and have never abused my powers there.) Perl 12:49, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:
 * 1) mav
 * 2) Theresa knott

Comments:
 * comment I will be supporting pearl in a little while but I think we should be a bit cautious about sysopping people here based on their contributions to other wikis. As accounts are seperate,what's to stop a troll creating an account here with the name of a respected user on wikipedia? I'm not suggesting for a minute that perl is really someone else, but we should establish a policy now. Theresa knott 06:35, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I have edited my userpage on wikipedia [ to prove that I am the same Perl. [[User:Perl|Perl]] 22:51, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me - I support Perl's nomination. Theresa knott 11:34, 19 Mar 2004 (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 edit:12:47, 2 February 2006; 2 edits after a two year Wikibreak; last log entry:none)
 * Support - Very small amount of edits, and none for admin tasks. -Matt 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, but in view of the recent edits would welcome having this user informed on his talk page so that if there are good reasons why we shouldn't proceed with the de-sysopping, we can consider them, Jguk 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This user made two edits recently and the most recent edit after that is in 2004. I'd say this user is gone, especially with regards to sysop, but I'll leave a message. -Matt 21:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I left a message on his talk page (even though Matt had already left one). --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)
 * Have you checked Perl's contribution history? Are you saying 2 edits on 2 February 2006 after a period of inactivity since 31 October 2004 is active enough to merit retaining sysop rights, especially when this user has never, ever used sysop rights? Jguk 08:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral --Kernigh 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am not inactive, I've just been very busy. --Perl 14:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. User is active enough to oppose this, and if he still wants it, we shouldn't just take it away for no reason. He hasn't abused his powers in any way, has he? -- LV (Dark Mark) 19:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The user is active enough? Besides the edits the user made on the day he/she came to vote here, I can count the number of edits this user has made in the past year and a half on one hand. Pairing that with never using logged administrative tools makes this a solid removal in my opinion. I'd like to hear how this user is active in anyway because by his/her statistics, this user stopped working here in 2004 besides a random edit or two. Since this user was given the rights so long ago and there has been no activity here, how does the community know that the user is even up to date on policy or anything else that an admin may need to know? Why does this user need administrative tools? There is no evidence of their use and this user didn't even say that they wanted to keep them. -Matt 21:35, 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)
 * Oppose --German Men92 01:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- I am sorry to vote whilst I am not an editor here. Count my vote or do not count it. But, oppose. Anthere 23:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No concensus over several months of voting. De-sysopping failed. -Matt 02:37, 20 June 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 24 Sep 2004.

Cancelled. This user has had about 20 edits within the last year, and is therefore not eligible for de-adminiship in this manner. However I will send him a message, and see if he ever plans to return. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:23, 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 17). Looking at this user's history, his/her editing truly stopped in September of 2004. Spare edits do not count as activity. This case is especially obvious where the user has provided no reasoning in past discussion for needing to be an admin and has quite clearly left the project. -within focus 22:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy says that inactivity requires at least 20 edits in the past year, and then goes on to say that that number is only a guideline. Either way, a user is allowed to be bearly-active under the policy, which is different from inactive. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's absurd for 16 edits over the course of two years to count as any sort of activity. That is clear-cut inactivity to me. -within focus 22:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This user was already brought up for de-adminship earlier this year, and he had opposed the action: http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=396174. I don't know that we will be able to "force" the matter if the user opposes, and it is my feeling that we probably won't be able to. Pushing the issue when we can't force such a change to be made will only make people angry at one another. A few admins who adamantly want to be both admins and inactive will slip through these cracks. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is not a choice in this de-adminship since it is a matter of policy. If the admin contests it, he/she can apply to be an admin at a later date. It's all covered in the policy. -within focus 22:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Objection withdrawn. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Rights removed on 1 Nov 2006. -within focus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)