Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Jimbo Wales

• Jimbo is our Benevolent dictator, but is obviously highly inactive here. If he ever needed sysop or 'crat rights here, he could give them to himself. There's no reason to apply the policy inequally on account of his fame. Indeed, we desysoped the "real" founder of Wikibooks User:Karl Wick last year for inactivity.
• Last edit was 12:04, August 4, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:How To Escape the Headlock
• Last sysop action was 09:19, May 8, 2006 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Rip a karaoke cd" ‎ (speedy deleted - not a textbook) (restore)

The following administrators have been inactive for a minimum of one year, and are to be desysoped per policy. The request will be made at Meta in one month's time. The users below have been informed on their talk page, as well as by email if one was confirmed. As always, no discussion is needed; policy discussion should happen at Wikibooks talk:Administrators, not here.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If he "could give them to himself" what is the point in taking them away? Why waste time doing things like this when it would have no effect? --ЗAНИA  ^talk 11:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Why waste time? Firstly, talking about it wastes more time than it took me to add him. But to answer your real question "Why bother?" Because that's the policy! If you want the policy changed, go do it. Keep in mind that there's a whole host of others (all devs with shell access, all stewards, and most/all staff) who could give themselves +sysop here, but don't because that would be totally unnecessary, just as it's totally unnecessary for Jimbo to keep +sysop. Adminship is not a trophy, and is "not a big deal".  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 13:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I always saw adminship as a set of keys to the janitor's closet. Not a big deal, but a sign that you are trusted by the community. If you become inactive for a while then what good does it to to strip admin privileges? Inactivity certainly doesn't mean you are no longer trustworthy. I used to be an admin here (too lazy to log in), and the one thing it did guarantee is that I would STAY inactive. Of course I'm just harping away here..I don't care enough any more to try and change the policy. It makes absolutely no sense to de-admin jimbo, but it makes no less sense than it did to de-admin most of the other people who have been through this page. And it's not like wikibooks has a huge abundance of contributors either. -129.97.58.55 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The reasoning is explained in depth in the discussion surrounding the enacting of the policy. In brief, the tools are meant to be used; adminship is not a trophy; and Wikibooks changes greatly over the span of a year. There's no need to have +sysop to contribute, so I don't see how de-adminship would guarantee that you remain inactive, nor how it might reduce the number of contributors to the project. The community thinks that this is of net benefit to the project (though consensus can change).  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 05:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• When people do things "just because it's policy" then we're in a bit of a mess. Policy is all well and fine but common sense is needed. --ЗAНИA  ^talk 19:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, we should ignore accepted policy because he's famous? Or because he can grant himself any rights he wants, so we should ignore policy in this instance? If it is something that Brion has requested for himself, I imagine it isn't without a point. Webaware ^talk 22:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that we should respect the policy. In case Jimbo Wales needs the rights again he should also respect the processes and re-apply for the flags. I don't see any reason why it should be different or this action be interpreted as a lack of consideration. --Panic (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done by Nick1915.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 23:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]