Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Geocachernemesis

This user has been helpful in reverting newbie tests, vandalism, and the ever-persistent Chinese spammers. It's about time that Geocachernemesis, a user since September 2004, is given the keys to the big mops and guns. Guanaco 03:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination Guanaco, I accept.:) I had noticed the amount of vandalism that had been getting through, and felt that someone needed to do something about it. I contribute mainly to Wikibooks, Wikipedia, and Wikimedia Commons, with 465, 418, and 343 edits respectively (1426 in total). Additionally, I've contributed significantly to the Cookbook, adding 42 of my own images. (_Donovan|Geocachernemesis|^Interact) 05:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• support: Somehow I thought Geocachernemesis was already an admin! MShonle 06:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• oppose: He seems to have something personal against me, probably because I have disagreed with him on numerous occasions. A good admin (like MShonle for example, to note one who impresses me) can put aside even very large disagreements over wiki content. I'd rather not have an admin with a grudge against me. AlbertCahalan 14:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't have anything against you personally Albert. But, the reason that I (and probably the three others) didn't support your nomination for adminship is not because of stylistic differences. But, instead, because of the terse manner in which you have dealt with others in the past (you admit to this in your nomination below). I'm sure that we will support you if you continue to be courteous to others, as you have been recently. (_Donovan|Geocachernemesis|^Interact) 05:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support: Gets to the source of the problem before I do, and that says a lot. KelvSYC 01:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• oppose: User reverted a correction without any knowledge of the language/topic. Unacceptable for an admin candidate. --messi 16:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) abstain: --messi 13:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  I believe you're referring to his revert on German: Lesson 9, in which he changed "passt" to "passen". If you check the logs off the other edits user 62.180.31.25 made [1], you'll see that two were rather juvenile vandalism to the cookbook, and one to the main German page. This user also added something which looks ok to the programming languages page, but I think Geocachernemesis can be forgiven for assuming this user's edits to that page were spam/noob experiments, and especially forgiven because he just did a revert, not a willy-nilly edit. Kellen 17:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  I think you don't understand me. This is not about a specific revert. I don't want any admin to just assume a user's edit is wrong without knowledge (of the topic) or consultation from others. Wikibooks.org has many users who watch over their articles. This just looks as if Geocachernemesis wants as many edits as possible for his/her candidacy. My opinion, my vote. --messi 17:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there are a lot of assumptions that have to be made. I think Kellen brings up a good point that once an IP address loses its credibility the recent changes should be reverted. But you should try to assume good faith instead of jumping to the conclusion that Geocachernemesis is somehow on a mission to inflate edits; that is just not reflected in the reality of all the good Geocachernemesis has done for wikibooks. MShonle 18:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, Messi reverted that very same user! [2] (And, with good cause: they were a vandal.) So, tell me, how much would you trust someone who made anti-German jokes who also edited one of the pages? I probably would have reverted it myself. MShonle 23:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. Geocachernemesis does a good job and I don't think he's "on a mission", but he's a bit overzealous for my taste. He should have known better. I won't change my mind on this, but it's only one vote. --messi 00:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way Messi. But, I can't help but feel that you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I don't understand why you didn't bring your concerns up on my talk page first. The edits by 62.180.31.25 were mostly childish vandalism. So, obviously, all of their edits were now suspect. I decided to trust the first edit (because it made a significant contribution), but because the fifth edit was an anti-German slur, I decided to revert the second (minor) edit (it would have been a simple matter for a fluent German speaker to revert my change if I was mistaken). I could have, however, simply rolled back all of the changes by that user without even looking at the diffs, but I didn't.

I'm really surprised that nobody has complained about any of my reverts in the last month, up until now, because I have made quite a few. It's always a fine line between fighting vandalism and undoing good edits, and it's sometimes hard to tell, but I do make mistakes (because I'm only human). If I wanted to inflate my edits, I would have made spelling corrections and other trivial changes, finding and reverting vandalism is really very time consuming (look at the timing of my edits). Additionally, I would have updated my edit stats, above. (_Donovan|Geocachernemesis|^Interact) 02:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• support: Attentive to linkspam, vandals, and still doing textual edits on the Cookbook. Kellen 17:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Tentative Support: Geocachernemesis has consistently contributed to the well-being and existance of many Wikibooks. He should be given access to the necessary tools to assist in his efforts. This is a tentative support as I have seen cases where newly-promoted admins run amok, but then again nothing much we can do short of getting Geocachernemesis to submit a psych analysis report.... ^_^
  
  Truth is, if we have more admins to keep up with the linkspammers and block them, perhaps our lives would be easier. Other than this, there's really nothing to stop us common users from doing a little bit of civic policing on our own. Lynx7725 05:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't have picked you as being one to have reservations about my adminship. You are the only one whom I advertised my adminship to directly. Thanks for the (tentative) vote of support Lynx7725. I wasn't intending to become an administrator for Wikibooks. But, as Guanaco nominated me, I though it would have been rude not to make a concerted effort to succeed.

As far as I can tell, being an administrator doesn't give you significantly more power than a regular user. You can immediately delete pages if they contain junk (and you don't have to wait ages for others to do it), that would be very useful on RC (recent changes) patrol. But, in other ways, being an administrator is a disadvantage, because your conduct is held to a higher standard than others'.

I agree that we do need to get more regular users involved with fighting spam than they currently are. I'm often surprised when a new registered user asks for an administrator to remove vandalism, possibly not understanding that they can easily do it for themselves (not you Lynx7725 ;). At the moment I'm virtually alone on RC patrol, and often find vandalism on the RC list that's over 12 hours old. It would be great to see more users take time away from their books, and run down the RC list for a few minutes now and then.

At the moment, I'm too busy to welcome new users. I'm too busy fixing their experiments. With a few more hands on board, I hope to spend more time on welcomes (that's far more rewarding). (_Donovan|Geocachernemesis|^Interact) 06:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reservation is not aimed at you specifically, it's just that a long time ago I had a bad experience with a over-ego'ed Sysop on a BBS. :)

Yes, Adminship looks to be more of a recognition than a true position of authority. The only major item is blocking (which is major). The ability to delete is actually not that major, since we can batch all the speedies together and wait for an admin to detele, and anything up for VfD is going to take this side of forever to resolve anyway. :) Lynx7725 07:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would have been good if one of us was able to block Henry the 88th just before. I'm obviously not alone on RC patrol, because Lynx7725 made significant contributions today (along with a couple of other users).:) (_Donovan|Geocachernemesis|^Interact) 08:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support: Can't believe there have been objections. Definitely a support. Geocachernemesis is one of our biggest weapons against vandalism as far as I can see. Serge 10:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Support: In fact I'd probably support anyone who isn't obviously a vandal. Yes, he may have made some mistakes, we all do, but he's always prepared to discuss things rationally, and admit that he can make mistakes. That's the only important characteristic an admin requires. Obviously being active might be considered another, but even though that may be true now, will it be the case in a year, 5 years, 50 years, etc.? Point is, you're never gonna know, so what does it matter?

The only thing I have against the guy is that the username he chose takes me too long to type. :-)

And just what the hell does it mean? 'Geo-' pertaining to the earth, 'cacher' someone who hides things away, and 'nemesis' an enemy of. So the guy is the enemy of people who like to hide the planet earth? What?!? ;-) - Aya ^T C 18:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[]

See www.geocaching.com. (_Donovan|Geocachernemesis|^Interact) 22:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[]

• Support: He may be a little bit zealous in a number of ways, but should it really be this hard to gain adminship? Generally the "edit wars" I've seen him involved with are mainly to protect Wikibooks, and he has done an outstanding job of most of the places I've seen his sig and name involved in page histories. Certainly he has a good grasp of Wikibooks policies and a desire to enforce them. As far as "running amok", I hope he doesn't go and ban all our IP addresses (I seriously doubt that would happen). There is some cleanup that only an admin can take care of, and it looks like he can help with some of that. --Rob Horning 08:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[]

This user seems to have enough support, and since the only opposition was for 'personal reasons', I have granted sysop access to this user. This section will be archived one week from today. - Aya ^T C 00:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[]

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 Sep 2005.

Has an en.wiki account. I sent him a message there. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Well, I suppose policy is policy... I primarily used my admin powers to roll back vandalism, and I admit that is all I have had time to contribute over the past year or so. I suppose adminship is not a big deal, so I'll just have to apply to be reinstated at a later date. Anyway, have fun.:) Geo.^T 18:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[]

Rights removed on 1 Nov 2006. -withinfocus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[]