Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/The bellman

+Administrator
I would like to be able to have admin status, mainly because im sick of chinese wikispam on wikibooks that i am editing (mainly quechua, and wikijunior). I am active on lots of different wikis (most active on en.wikipedia), and 3 mailing lists. I have never been in an edit/revert/flame war, and i dont think anyone could doubt that i am a good-faith contributor. My only real wikisin, is that i sometimes forget to do summaries of my edits. thanks. The bellman 10:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) i withdraw my request due to a lack of reacent activity on this wiki on my behalf. The bellman 02:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Huh? You got support 21 Jan 2005, and no opposition. While this is statistically lame, adminship can be granted and revoked without destroying anything really. As far as I can tell, you simply need to remind a bureaucrat. AlbertCahalan 02:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It's silly, but I oppose for as long as this user's user page is an interwiki redirect to wikipedia. Setting up such a redirect makes it difficult to leave wikibooks specific messages, or check wikibooks related edits. Gentgeen 23:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, i didnt realise that anyone had any prob with that. I just did it so that i would be able to check just one talk page. (so that for example if someone comments on something that i did on wiktionary or another (god only knows how many) of the other projects (or languages) i can know of the message as soon as possible.) Of course all of this wont matter as much when they introduce universal login. The bellman 00:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object if the content of the user page and talk page were simply, "Leave me a message at my wikipedia user page, because I'm there more often." Gentgeen 01:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Sorry, didnt realise it was a prob. The bellman 10:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now I support. Gentgeen 19:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note, this user was admin'd, but not recorded here. - Aya T C 21:29, 7 August 2005 (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 4 Sep 2005.


 * I think it's a bit of a crazy policy to disadmin those who are inactive, since really adminship isn't that big a deal, but since it is the will of the community then, there you go. I hope sometime in the future to get active again in wikibooks so i'll porbably reapply then. Until then, have fun all you wikibookians. The bellman 09:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


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