Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Recent Runes

+Rollbacker
User has consistently been undoing vandalism for some time and I believe being able to revert vandalism would be helpful in anti-vandalism efforts. It would also make things easier and encourage continued action along the same line. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't object to a promotion, but perhaps someone can explain how I should exercise my new powers (whatever they are!). Recent Runes (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rollbacker is very straightforward: you will have a single extra control. When you are looking at the most recent edit of a page, you will have a control [Rollback] which undoes all the most recent contributions by the most recent single editor in one click. E.g. edits by a, c, a, b, a, d, a, a, a, click once to remove the top three edits by a and return to d's last edit. This is clearly handy in cases of repeated vandalism of a single page, but is also set up so that you can go to a vandal's contributions page, and just click on everything he has contributed to revert it all. Note that there is a limit of 20 reversions per minute; this is a bit low, I've brushed up against it a few times. Chazz (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone actively cleaning up vandalism gets my vote. Chazz (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

✅. Recent Runes is a highly active "undoer", Rollback makes it easier and they've been around long enough to know what they are doing! QU TalkQu 00:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

+Administrator
The ranks of administrators have been shrinking here of late, so I believe it's time to add another one. In my opinion, User:Recent Runes is a highly qualified candidate who could fill this role. Having the tools will make him an even more valuable member of the Wikibooks community. --Jomegat (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - yes, I certainly agree that we're lacking admins. I've thought of nominating Recent Runes months before, but I never got round to... Thanks Jomegat for nominating him or her. :) Kayau (talk &#124; email &#124; contribs) 01:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not really supposed to vote or discuss a nomination until the candidate accepts. I asked RR before making the nomination though, and it was accepted here. Hopefully, that's good enough, and voting and discussion can proceed. --Jomegat (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * red faced* whoops, forgot that. :P Kayau (talk &#124; email &#124; contribs) 02:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I'm being obtuse, but the admin page shows 10 admins... perhaps a better term might be active admins? Chazz (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Those that came before decided they'd have to be inactive for a full year before we can call them inactive. Looking at the past three months, however, one can see some trends. – Adrignola talk 12:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We cannot take an admin's right until (s)he has been inactive for a year, but even if he's inactive for a month we can call him/her inactive. ;-) Kayau (talk &#124; email &#124; contribs) 12:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * since he appears to have a good history on-wiki. I wish you the best. -Arlen22 (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Emblem-fun.svg|15px]] Accept - I am happy to accept the nomination. Recent Runes (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol support vote.svg Support. I see nothing objectionable in contributions history.  I've seen Recent Runes consistently reverting vandalism and assume that would extend to deleting junk pages as well.  My interpretations of activity may be skewed, so I won't assess that criterion, but since Recent Runes has been around since November 2007, I don't think it likely that the candidate would disappear any time soon. – Adrignola talk 19:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * --Pi zero (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While I might quibble at the terminology used, I don't have any complaints about the candidate; and as Recent Runes has accepted the nomination, I can now support it. Chazz (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * --Panic (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? --Diego Grez (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * An excellent idea, he has my full support. Thenub314 (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * . Good work by Recent Runes, looked around, saw no problems. --Abd (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * . Yep, fine. QU TalkQu 22:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * . Frozen Wind  want to be chilly?  23:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(-sysop)
This user has not made any admin change (see log) and his last contribution in any form was more than one year back. At this time, I do not think that he needs the sysop permissions anymore. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 10:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You should leave a note on their user talk page. I was going to say you should also email them; but my mild surprise to find email not enabled on their account eventually led me to, apparently, the only mention of email on WB:ADMIN, which is in the section on removing their privileges:
 * The inactive sysop will be contacted both on his/her talk page and e-mail address (if available) to contest the nomination.
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, notified him on talk page. Is there anything more that I have to do? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 12:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing else comes to mind, atm. Thanks.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Inactive from what I've seen. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC) The one-month waiting period has expired,. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * : The last user action is from 8 May 2017 and the last admin action is from 10 February 2014 (Special:Log/Recent_Runes). Let the user be tempted to return much longer. In en wikt, we now have a voted policy that says that inactivity-based desysopping takes place after 5 years of no admin action; I proposed the policy, it passed, and I like it. While WB:ADMIN states that "Sysops who are especially inactive, specifically for at least one year or longer, can be removed without a consensus discussion", I would like to take exception to that policy since I deem it unwise, especially for such a small project as Wikibooks; I do not find any tracing from the policy to a discussion or a vote. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 21:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not the time or the place to argue policy; there are policy areas for that. Under the current policy, as you have pointed out, desysopping can take place after 1 year, and that is the policy we have applied to date. It is always possible that Recent Runes may choose to return; if so, and if he chooses to take up this mantle again, reapplication is always an option for him. Chazz (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not much of a policy as a policy draft since it does not trace to a discussion or a vote. And I have no link to a discussion of that specific policy item that desysopping can take place after 1 year of inactivity. If that indeed were a policy that can never be overriden via consensus, the present discussion would be unnecessary ("can be removed without a consensus discussion", italics mine); to the extent this discussion takes place, I record my opposition to the planned desysopping. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Iirc a good place to start investigating the history of desysop-for-inactivity is in some of the early desysop nominations. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

In the absence of a policy we apply established practices which is one year. The default for no policy projects is two years, as agreed by an RFC. In the early days of projects nobody worried that wiki lawyers would turn up looking for endless evidence of policy approval, hence it doesn't exist. However, all current admins were elected with the current policy in place. Ergo those voting for them did so in the belief that they would lose the rights after one year. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "endless evidence": Not really; finite evidence suffices perfectly well. As for what happened in the early days of Wikibooks, there were multiple policy votes, e.g. Policies and guidelines/Vote/Deletion Policy and Policies and guidelines/Vote/Blocking policy. I do not oppose using established practices as an overidable basis for decision making; rather, I feel it is fine for me to oppose here absent policy supported by an objectively verifiable consensus. The key driver for my opposition is not the absence of policy (formal grounds), but rather a disagreement with the putative policy in conjunction with an alternative desysopping principle that has turned out to have a significant verifiable support in the English Wiktionary (material grounds). I believe that one-year-inactivity desysopping is unwise, especially on small projects, which drives me to oppose application of that principle. As for "Ergo those voting for them did so in the belief that they would lose the rights after one year": That hypothesis about the actual belief of those voting is very uncertain, as a matter of fact. Furthermore, let's consider the following putative principle: "If an editor disagrees with at least one item of admin policy, he should refrain from voting in admin votes". It seems pretty obvious to me that that principle has to be rejected, and therefore, voting for a particular admin in order to enable them to use admin tools is not an endorsement of whatever admin policy or putative policy exists. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is all getting rather red-tape-ish for my tastes; the folks who were actually around in the early days when the practice was established were clearly satisfied it was policy. And yes, it's been set policy for a long, long time so incoming admins knew what they were getting into.  That said, in case someone's interested in the history, as best I've determined (from looking through about a quarter of the RFP archives), it was first discussed at the reading room in early 2006, a batch of users were nominated for desysop at that time and the proposal went down in flames, then admin policy was settled on the matter and another batch removal in late 2006 went through with only a bit of discussion about details of how best to conduct the procedure. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 11:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It does not need to get red-tape-ish if we agree that I am entitled to post an oppose here, other people are entitled to post support, and absent consensus, policy draft prevails, or alternatively, cross-wiki meta policy prevails. However, what I see above is a consensus (2/3-supermajority) for desysopping, so desysopping can proceeed. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Tbh, I don't find it credible to treat our admin policy as if it weren't a policy. It's clear, looking back, that at the time community consensus treated it as a policy. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Reading again your previous post, could you provide a link or two to those reading room discussions from 2006 and such, so I can see the same thing you see there? I can never find my way aroung Wikibooks reading rooms. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh. Just about the first comment I made to the wider Wikibooks community was wiki-archaeology regarding some point or other.  The trick is generally to find a starting point and work outward from it; in this case, I suggest Requests for permissions/Cyp. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I now created Category:Requests for desysop for easier search. Back to the meta-issue: based on experience, I distrust claims of consensus made without objective verifiable evidence of consensus, most reliable of which are votes. Yes, there are all sort of people claiming that the strength of the argument must prevail, and I agree with them provided I am the one to assess the strength of the argument. That cannot work; we need objective verifiable evidence of consensus. I feel I have the right to log an opposition to application of an unwise policy draft; tool holders may feel to have right to ignore my opposition; the important thing is, the reader can see there actually was an opposition. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You have the right to log an opposition to the existing policy; preferably succinctly, since this isn't the venue for proposing a change of policy. You did log your opposition.  Claiming the policy isn't a policy, well, you logged your claim to that effect, others (in positions of greater responsibility for implementing policy) expressed their disagreement, that ought to have been all that needed said. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs)
 * (That came out sounding more negative than I'd hoped; the point I was trying for was that somehow this all seems like just a bit... much.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess it cannot hurt to also have a place for an extended discussion of the putative policy itself. I therefore logged an opposition at Wikibooks talk:Administrators. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)