Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Derbeth

I noticed there is a number of vandalisms being not reverted in English Wikibooks (I once caught one in Wikibooks:About remaining there for about a month). Also, sites marked for speedy deletion wait for long time. I think I'm able to help fighting with vandalism.

I don't have many contributions to English Wikibooks, but I've been an active sysop of Polish Wikibooks for 8 months [1]. I think I might be useful, because I live in Poland and have completely different timezone then people in US, so I can catch vandalisms when other sysops are f.e. sleeping. --Derbeth 09:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[]

• Support - After having reviewed this user's edit history, it seems they have put in a lot of effort keeping Wikibooks clean and tidy. - Aya ^T E C 18:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[]

• Support - Though my vote is moot, I think the other-language WikiBookians could help nip some spammers in the bud before they get to spam too much (because their IP can be blocked here quickly too). --MShonle 22:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Done - Although I was hoping for a few more votes from other users. - Aya ^T E C 16:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Well, if you'd waited for me to get off my butt and check his edit history there probably would have been another support vote! AlbertCahalan 03:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Aya, perhaps in the future you could give us a day's notice, just in case? That could help show consensus and motivate people like Albert and me to respond. --MShonle 04:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Well. The text above gives the impression that a decision will be made in a week, to prevent the problems we had previously when there was no strict deadline, and Wikibooks was slowing running out of active admins. The user made the request on the 23rd Sep, so the decision should've been made on the 30th Sep, although I didn't actually implement it until the 3rd Oct. Still. It all worked out okay in the end. - Aya ^T E C 18:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[]

Since Aya has gone onto a Wikibreak and we are currently without an active Bureacrat, I'd like to nominate Derbeth to take over this job. Besides, we could use a couple more bureaucrats here as well on Wikibooks with the expanding number of admins and the general growth of Wikibooks.

Derbeth has been doing an outstanding job of patrolling vandalism, and in addition has been staying politically neutral on many internal issues for Wikibooks. With his already outstanding service as an administrator, I'd like to give him the additional responsibilities and privileges that come with being a bureaucrat (as well as to clean up the above list of nominiations). The additional responsibilities really are pretty minor, but it would be nice to keep some active bureacrats going on Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 16:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[]

I never wanted to be a bureaucrat, even when I became a sysop. But as I can see that we are in need of bureaucrats and people here are giving me such support, I won't oppose. I don't have time to track every policy discussion and I am not the one who knows solutions to our problems, but I think I am able to cope with strictly bureaucratic tasks. --Derbeth ^talk 01:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[]

• Support. Seems dedicated to the project. Important to have at least one active BCrat here. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[]

• Dont we have to wait for Derbeth to accept first? Whatever :) I Support, because he catches so many vandalisms. --Dragontamer 17:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[]

• Support. - as soon as he accept the nomination ;-) --Krischik ^T 12:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[]

• Comment. Derbeth has not accepted the nomination yet, so I will not vote because these votes might not be counted. However, Derbeth often reverts bad changes to pages and has several entries in the Special:Log for temporary blocks against IP addresses. This user is very active in protecting Wikibooks from vandals. --Kernigh 22:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[]

Lol, then I'll vote after he accepts as well :) --Dragontamer 23:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[]

Support --Kernigh 20:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[]

• Support. --Cspurrier 23:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[]
• Support. Diversity of Bureaus is also important. --MShonle 01:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[]
• Support - several active b'crats is important for the project, and Derbeth is the right choice. Gentgeen 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[]
• Support. I didn't want to vote until Derbeth accepted the nomination, although i admit that i could hardly wait for him to reply. We need more b'crats desperately, and i can't think of a name i've seen more often in the recent changes list fighting vandals and such. Derbeth is an excellent choice for the position, and i only hope it doesnt bring him too much stress! --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 04:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[]

• Support As qualified or more as anyone else here. --JMRyan 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]

• Support Someone has to do it. (I was tempted to vote against just to get some debate going :-) --kwhitefoot 10:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]
• Oppose per below. Guanaco 03:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Neutral. I don't think Derbeth would abuse bureaucrat powers, but his use of blocking powers is suspect. Guanaco 02:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Support. I believe the blocking issue has been cleared up. Guanaco 02:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[]

I have just been made bureaucrat. --Derbeth ^talk 22:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Because I regularly fight vandals I sometimes need to check IP of suspicious registered users. There are other situations when it is good to have possibility of such check - for example, if during a vote some people are likely to be sockpuppets (duplicate accounts of other users). Only stewards and users with CheckUsers rights (neither sysops nor bureaucrats have such rights by default) are able to see IP of registered users. Unfortunately stewards are sometimes unavailable, so I think we should have our own users with CheckUser rights.

meta:CheckUser Policy provides more information about the function. Important thing is that we need at least 25 votes of support for candidate to be chosen. It is hard, but with some determination we can reach this level - every vote counts so please take part in the vote. Second thing is that there should be two or more CheckUser-s at a project. Therefore, I strongly encourage you to support Uncle G, who is another candidate for this function. --Derbeth ^talk 21:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]

• Support. --JMRyan 21:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support --Dragontamer 21:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support - Athrash | ^Talk 21:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support --Gentgeen 07:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support --Krischik ^T 10:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support --Xerol Oplan 11:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support --kwhitefoot 11:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support We need at least somebody with this on Wikibooks right now. The 25 vote limit IMHO is way off base, but let's see if we can get that pulled together here.--Rob Horning 14:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support -Matt 17:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support --Kernigh 21:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support --Gabe Sechan 22:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[]
• Oppose I cannot support this in good faith. Derbeth has frequently blocked users without warning for isolated instances of childish vandalism. This is worse than RickK ever was at Wikipedia. Guanaco 03:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Weak oppose for giving CheckUser powers out on Wikibooks at this time.[]

  I think you are looking for revenge for my vote against you during your request for bureaucrat rights. Yes, I often block anonymous users without any warning, but only if they are open proxies. According to meta:Proxy blocking I have such right, I don't see any sense in disputing with such cases. Only two people complained to me about blocking them, in both cases I removed block as soon as I can. If you check special:log/block you will see that two mistakes in such number of blocks is just statistical necessity. --Derbeth ^talk 09:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

  I am not looking for revenge. Again, you are assuming bad faith. In many cases, these vandals are not blocked for being open proxies, but merely for "vandalism" (see the block log). I am not opposed to long-term blocks of actual open proxies used for vandalism, but if they are not really open proxies, please block for a maximum of 24 hours and warn the user first. Yes, only two users complained about the blocks, but countless others may have left Wikibooks without contesting the block. Guanaco 22:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

  I only block open proxies without waring, show me where I blocked normal IP's for long time. Just take a look at block log and [SORBS database - IMO they show I am innocent. Furthermore, block log shows that you are massively unblocking anonymous users - many of which are open proxies listed on SORBS. --Derbeth ^talk 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]

  You blocked 70.16.233.110 for "vandalism". That user inserted "bitch" into a page and reverted it one minute later after realizing that it actually appeared on the module. And you are lynching Negroes. I unblocked the dozens of users because they had either been blocked a long time ago, and the block should have expired, or because they were blocked for "vandalism" (not "open proxy or SORBS") without warning.02:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  I probably was in a hurry and forgot to add "open proxy". Nonetheless, this IP is open proxy according to SORBS. Sometimes I just forget to add open proxy because I'm blocking many vandals simultaneously. --Derbeth ^talk 09:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[]

  When you blocked the IP, it had already been delisted from SORBS. It is a dynamic Verizon IP. Guanaco 16:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[]

• Support. Derbeth is helpful and trustworthy, and with the amount of vandalism that he fights, it only makes sense to give him the power to fight vandals better. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 05:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support -- As the tricks vandals use become more and more sophisticated we need people who can act quick and nip problems in the bud. --MShonle 23:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support. 25 votes be damned. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[]
• Abstain. Just to indicate that I am aware of this potentially useful tool – and hope never to witness the need for it. David Kernow 20:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support -- John N. 13:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[]
• Strongly Oppose -- Derbeth has a very aggressive attitude (he makes personal attacks on contributors User_talk:Marshman#Basic Ecology Contents) that makes his acquisition of any special rights here a potential detriment to Wikibooks. - marsh 19:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC). If you want examples of how he will treat you, look at his comments under de-sysoping above - marsh[]
• Strongly Oppose comment: I've only been at wikibooks for a few days. User Derbeth has violated WB:DP. He has p a speedy delete on the article How To Ride The Bus. In turn because of the way wikibooks is set-up, unavoidably, the article was sent to WB:VFD. However according WB:DP no article should be nominated for vfd for at least 1 week. WB:DP suggest, for new users, such as me, we should wait up to a month before nominate a VFD. I made a vote. And now he says it doesn't count. How the heck am I supposed to vote? The worst thing is. He made me, the new user, do his dirty work. Do we really want someone that can't even loyally represent wikibooks, let alone himself, to have such power. Notwithstanding, and perhaps irrelevant, he is stalling on his refutations in the delete discussion. Because of this I think he encourages bad feelings on wikibooks. Think about it. I do 4 to 5 edits to a new article and he is nominating it for a speedy delete. He encourage people to violate rules. Frankly I feel that he is only going to use this privelege to take advantage of more people. --72.57.8.2I5 07:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Two other users described your work as complete rubbish and not a textbook - both qualify it to be speedy deleted. You are funny trying to show that I broke any rules - in my opinion this book is a target for speedy deletion, but I haven't deleted it (although I could). --Derbeth ^talk 09:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[]
  • This is not the place for discussion about this, but maybe you should visit WB:NPA before posting offensive material such as this comment. -Matt 18:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[]
    • Talking about WB:NPA, I decided to censor a few stuff from both 72.57.8.2I5 and Derbeth. Check my edit corresponding to my signature date if you wanna see my specific cuts. My feelings on Derbeth are very high; he catches vandals and reverts their edits faster than I can say "wow", and he hangs out on the IRC vandal-detector channel all day long (perhaps the 2 go hand-in-hand :-p) . He obviously cares much about Wikibooks and am shocked that someone would have any bad feelings to him. Second, proposed policies such as WB:DP in Wikibooks are not rules, or even official yet. It says so right on the top of the page. Finally, you should be glad that Derbeth at least put up a speedy-delete tag on instead of deleting it outright. --Dragontamer 02:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support --Allefant 17:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support By my understanding, this is the only way to stop registered users from coming back under a new name, even when the fact that they are vandalizing is obvious. In my opinion, that's being way to protective, so you have my support. --Hagindaz 13:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support We need a checkuser baddly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tfurey1 (talk • contribs) .
• Support. Denying a sysop checkuser rights just because it could be abused would be like calling Superman unsafe but only taking away his heat vision. Either we trust them with everything, or nothing. Garrett^Talk 05:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support RobinH 12:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support. I hadn't voted because the outcome seemed obvious. Apparently 25 supports are needed. Here's one more. Brian Brondel 13:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kellen ^T 10:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support Derbeth should definatelly be able to do this. Very useful tool, especially considering how easy it is to create an account.Dolive35 10:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support Jguk 06:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support Junkeater 19:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support --Cspurrier 22:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support -- SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[]
• Support AlbertCahalan 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Done. The stewards have given User:Derbeth checkuser rights. Thanks to everbody for voting. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[]

Please see above. -withinfocus 00:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[]

• Acceptance -

Votes

Closed - abandoned - will archive in the next couple of days --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)'[]

Derbeth has no CheckUser log entries since 29 December 2006. Removal of CU access has been requested at m:Requests for permissions#Derbeth@enwikibooks.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[]

This was done.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Derbeth has made fewer than 20 edits in the past year, but the most recent tool uses were on Feb 23 2009, with any uses before that over a year ago. Those uses on the 23 I would consider to be under the bureaucrat tool use, as they were all for renaming a user. However, you can't be a bureaucrat unless you're an administrator, and administrative tools haven't been used for a year if you exclude the edits on the 23 I count as part of the user rename. So this nomination is more debatable based on interpretation and community input-- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 13:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[]

Comment I hope we have some discussion on this. I think there's a strong case for removal per the inactivity policy under Adrignola's intepretation, but also a case that the policy makes no distinction around why the edits were made and hence removal shouldn't happen yet. I'd prefer not to have a "policy based" argument though and would hope to hear from Derbeth that he intends to continue using the tools and contributing, or supports the removal himself... Will "vote" later. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 13:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[]

meta:Steward_requests/Permissions#Derbeth.40en.wikibooks. --Derbeth ^talk 21:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[]

Thanks, a pity though. Hope you have the time to come back one day. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[]