Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Thenub314

When I think of Thenub314, I am reminded of myself. We have had similar goals, namely the categorization of pages and a general cleaning up of organization in the wiki. I have gotten the distinct feeling from his requests for book renaming, page deletion, and editing of protected pages over the past months that we've been working on cleaning up that he is being held back from his full potential to assist. I've ended up handling many pages he's labeled for history merges or speedy deletions and I have to say he's been spot-on nearly every time. Beyond that, his contributions to mathematics books are significant and he has participated extensively in the reading room and in votes for deletion. From the discussion of bookshelves and subjects alone one can see his concern for the optimum operation of Wikibooks and the ramifications of administrator actions. His acceptance of a nomination is below. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 16:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[]

Support Any user willing to step up and wield the mop well is a gift from the Almighty. Granting this nomination will free up other administrators from having to handle this user's requests, and prevent him from becoming frustrated, either with lack of ability or length of response times. Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[]

I gladly accept nomination. Thenub314 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[]

Support As per Geoff. --Jomegat (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[]

Support per nomination. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 19:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[]

Support because the tools could be useful and the nominee is trustworthy and has relevant experience. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 20:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[]

Support, quick spot check on latest 500 contribs showed no issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigma 7 (discuss • contribs)

I will self identify. If the community trusts me. Thenub314 (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[]

See the previous discussions regarding CUs, we will now have a potential number of 3 CUs, I wouldn't mind granting you the flag if the number would remain equal, that is if DL sees the requirements unpractical or we make Mike decision to drop the tools permanent. Until then I see as premature to enlist more CUs (You can read more about this in every other previous discussion for the CU flag). --Panic (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[]

1. Support Thenub is a trustworthy user. Diego Grez (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[]
2. Support We can trust him. —I-20the highway 17:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[]
3. Support. Having originally nominated Thenub as an administrator, my confidence in his abilities extends to the use of the CheckUser tool. I ask that he read CheckUser policy. – Adrignola talk 19:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[]

   Done Privacy and CheckUser policies read. Thenub314 (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[]

4. Support Trustworthy and able. --hagindaz 19:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[]
5. Support --Pi zero (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[]
6. Support Chazz (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[]
7. Support --Panic (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[]
8. Support Recent Runes (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[]
9. Support Sure. --Jomegat (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[]
10. Support - DL decined. I'm sad to see that we are numbering the supports but I guess I'll have to keep up with the Joneses. :-( Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 05:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[]
11. Support We are numbering the supports because policy requires 25 supports.... Happy to support. QU ^TalkQu 10:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[]
12. Support Arlen22 (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[]
13. Support Nfgdayton (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[]
14. Support Mattb112885 (talk to me) 03:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[]
15. Support ( Nice work on the electronics book ) Pearts (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[]
16. Support I see no reason not to trust him. --Freiberg (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[]
17. Support Tdvorak 15:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[]
18. Support Waldir (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[]
19. Support Fishpi (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[]
20. Support 25 it's a huge number, please also vote for me over there JackPotte (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[]
21. Support --Yair rand (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[]
22. Support --Srhat (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[]
23. Support -- 4crickj (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[]
24. Support One of the Joneses. Mainly your sister wiki, Wikiversity, but I'll be here! --Abd (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[]
25. Yes Better him than me. --darklama 01:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[]
26. Support --Hannes Röst (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[]
27. Support BORGATO Pierandrea BORGATO Pierandrea (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[]

Self-nomination, I think there could be a benefit in having more than one bureaucrat as Kayau pointed out in WB:RR/G. Thenub314 (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[]

• Support per my general reading room comment. Kayau (talk | email | contribs) 03:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Questions. How do you measure consensus in a RFD where there is not 100% numerical agreement? How does that process translate to RFPs? Do you understand the concept of a unified account and what is meant by usurpation? – Adrignola talk 04:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[]

The first question is a very good one. I do not have any set algorithm that I used to measure consensus, and I doubt any algorithm could work well. I take each RfD on a case by case basis, but here are some of the the things I attempt to do/consider in each case. I carefully consider the reasons given. I tend to give a lot of weight to well reasoned arguments, particularly those based on existing policy. I try to keep the best interests of the project in mind, and I carefully consider the arguments about how a page may positively or negatively effect the project. Finally, when in doubt, I try to err on the side of caution. Meaning if I am not convinced that there is consensus, then I close the subject as no clear consensus and do not delete the material in question. I also try not to try to be dispassionate as to RfD's I was involved in, if I cannot I let someone else close the discussion. If no one does, then I start explicitly asking others if they would close the conversation for me.

I suppose that this would translate to RfP's in the following way. I would read peoples statements and consider them carefully, giving more weight to well reasoned input based on how similar situations were handled in the past. While for the most part permissions on wikibooks are tools to be used as needed, I would carefully consider comments relating to the necessity or utility of granting permissions. In addition some tools may be abused so I would seriously consider comments relating to whether or not a user may be trusted with tools requested. Finally when in doubt I would tend to err on the side of caution.

I believe I understand the concepts of a unified accounts and usurpation, but I will describe them briefly so that you may decided if I do understand them. A unified account is simply a local account the main WMF wikis that have the same user name, registered email, together with some global meta data regarding if the accounts are to be treated as unified with respect to logging in. In terms of permissions, watchlist/messages, and preferences the accounts are separate. A user who has several accounts with the same name and registered email may unify them to help give one identity to their chosen user name across the WMF wiki's. This is easily done in the case that there are not already existing users with the same user name but a different email at some of the WMF wiki's.

This brings us to Usurpation. Occasionally a user may want to take over (or usurp) a given user name, for the purposes of unifying their accounts. If they are lucky enough that the account causing conflict with their user name is not in use, and a bureaucrat may rename the unused account, making it possible for someone else the person requesting usurpation to unify their accounts. Let me know if I should clarify further on anything. Thenub314 (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Looks good to me. There are two factors I consider when looking at a nomination: do I trust the user and does the user know when to use the tools. Learning how to use the tools comes with time, but the when is most important, especially with positions as CU and 'crat. That's what these questions were designed to discover and I continue the tradition of grilling candidates for high impact positions that was first begun when I was nominated for 'crat/CU. – Adrignola talk 12:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Thanks Adrig, that question was a good one. -Arlen22 (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Support Great asset. Diego Grez (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Support If we trust him enough to be a CU, we should trust him to be a 'crat as well. --Jomegat (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Oppose. Not convinced that this user has the stability needed to be a good 'crat, who should be able to see beyond dissent to consensus that unifies the community. The CU decision was more or less an emergency, and it's harder to abuse CU than the 'crat bit. With more time, maybe I'd change my mind. --Abd (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Why do you think that crat more easy to abuse than CU? Kayau (talk | email | contribs) 12:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Adrignola said it below. But I wouldn't make a big deal out of this. 'crats are expected to conduct themselves in an exemplary manner, in general. Maybe Thenub314 would grow into the position. I'm just stating my sense at the moment, I might think differently if this comes up in the future. I'd like to know if a 'crat is considering closure, how about a "last call for comments?" I might change my opinion. --Abd (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[]

I am the only 'crat. I will close one week after the last position has been added in this discussion (as in your and my comments on this side issue don't reset the timer). Local policies designate this as a high impact position and I will treat it as such. – Adrignola talk 16:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Having two 'crats is not for better oversight of 'crat actions, but to prevent one person from having absolute control. This is the same reason that (by default) 'crats cannot remove the admin bit. On a project with a single 'crat that would otherwise allow the one 'crat to remove all the administrators except for him/her self. A bureaucrat holds direct control over the creation of new administrators. If a 'crat wanted to abuse his/her position, he/she could require quid pro quo in return for the admin bit, only make admins of those in his/her "cabal", or refuse to grant the bit to anyone at all. – Adrignola talk 12:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Neutral since you tend to argue, though you don't tend to get into big arguments. I am a little unfriendly to the idea of you being a 'crat if arguments are going to crop up related to 'crat work. Besides, you just recently semi-retired over an argument. I do appreciate your work though. -Arlen22 (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Support Perhaps it is a bit soon after the recent dramas, but I think he could grow into the role with support from the other seasoned admins. By default, he is the best person to put their name forward so far. And if Adrignola needed to devote more time to academic studies or suddenly found a new interest, then we could find ourselves seriously lacking in the 'crat department. Recent Runes (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[]

I can't imagine Wikibooks without an Adrignola! -Arlen22 (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[]

I can... but only because I was here before him. I'll tell you, though, 'twas not as industrious a place. Chazz (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Question: When should a crat recuse themself from a crat action? --Pi zero (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Well there are two criteria I would suggest. First, if for any reason a 'crat is emotionally invested in the outcome of his decision he should let someone else make the decision. The reason for this first criteria is clear. It is simply too easy to think your emotions are not affecting your judgment when they are. The second criteria would be to recuse myself would be when there was any appearance of impropriety. For example, if the decision involved User:Dan_Gardner I would recuse myself. There is no real emotional investment, but we were in the same department for several years. Given that fact, any decision I would make about his case could easily be called into question because of the possibility my decision was based on my relationship with him and not based on the merits of his case.

My recent experiences at other wiki's has thought me that even the appearance of impropriety is very poisonous to a community. Thenub314 (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[]

• Support: there must be another bureaucrat here, like if Adrignola suddenly retires (which could be unlikely, but just saying). Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 23:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[]
• Support I'm comfortable. --Pi zero (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Inactive for sometime, last edit was in 2015 and his last logged administrative action was in 2013. User should be revoked of his rights due to inactivity. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[]

Message has been sent. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[]

Note that Thenub is also a 'crat. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 16:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[]

Oh, so I guess we shall revoke that too? --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[]

Yes, same guidelines apply, I was just making sure people reading this knew it was a -admin and -crat proposal. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[]

I just emailed this user being inactive everywhere [1] and still no answer should remove privileged flags.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[]

• Remove both bureaucrat and administrator flags for long inactivity. I will reconsider only if the user returns, which seems unlikely.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 03:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[]
• Remove both sysop and bureaucrat flags. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[]
  • Ajraddatz removed both flags.[2]--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 03:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[]

@Jusjih, Ajraddatz: The removal was outside of Wikibooks policy. The policy states "De-adminship in cases of absence for one year or more will take place at least one month after nomination". In this case I see no need for further action as Thenub clearly isn't returning, but for future requests please make sure you read the policy before acting on it. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[]

I'd be glad to reverse the action if he comes back. I will note, however, that such a policy is not written anywhere on this page - if you want stewards to enforce a policy on a wiki, it should be accessible. We deal with over 400 public, active wikis (as you well know). We cannot memorize the location of (potentially) 400 desysop policies. At the top of the page, it says that requests should last around a week - that would be a useful place to put a bit about inactivity requests taking longer. Regards, Ajraddatz (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[]

Fair point. Normally a WB admin or crat raises the request at Meta, and we all know the policy so this problem hasn't occurred before. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[]

Thanks! And yes, usually I would either request that a sysop/crat ask for the desysop or that the user provide a link to the policy, but this seemed like a clear enough case from reading the page. Apologies since it wasn't :-) Ajraddatz (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[]

@QuiteUnusual: Sorry to see Thenub314 having vanished everywhere and any misunderstanding. [3] Please discuss if the month-long waiting policy to remove inactive administrators and bureaucrats should be shortened, as inactive usernames with privileged flags are subject to security breaches if someone steals the password to break in. In addition to Ajraddatz, I am also willing to support speedy return without regular vote. Thanks for pointing something that I have never heard before as a former steward, but we should better secure our accounts and website against unauthorized break-in. Bad guys see us, but we do not always see them.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 04:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[]

If I might inject a comment, here. While it is certainly true inactive accounts with privileged flags are a potential security hazard, we aren't talking here about accounts that are particularly believed to be an urgent security threat (that's a different sort of situation entirely); we're talking about about accounts that have been sitting around inactive for over a year, and these accounts are not nominated for de-priv because of a security problem but, overtly, because if a user asks an admin for help and the admin isn't really around the user might not get the help they're asking for. Since there hasn't been a problem in over a year, I see no reason to treat one more month as a serious risk. That said, at en.wn we do have a provision in our privilege expiry policy, providing for a fast-track process for restoration of privileges; the terms of the process were chosen for en.wn, of course, though some would likely apply to any project with a fast-track process (the user should be in good standing and their privs removed only for inactivity). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 07:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[]

I know Thenub's real life identity, and in this case there was no risk of a security risk on the account. However, in general I agree that we don't want inactive accounts but remember he's been inactive for a year, so waiting one day or one month makes very little difference to the risk. If there is evidence of a problem we would ask a Steward to lock the account anyway. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 10:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Support PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions 01:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[]