Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Karen Johnson

+Administrator
User:Karen Johnson Can I put in a request please? I'd like to have admin rights here so I can fix up my own boneheaded naming-mistakes in the cookbook instead of leaving a mess for other people to clean up... I haven't broken the en:wikipedia yet and I've been an admin there for a long time :) KJ 07:46, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Support Dysprosia 08:08, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Gentgeen 09:28, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * TUF-KAT 15:13, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Perl 17:24, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Karen should be an admin on this wiki now. --mav 03:40, 5 Apr 2004 (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 edit:19:37, 23 April 2004; last log entry:none)
 * Support - Has not edited in many months. Most likely the admin's knowledge of policy is quite out of date. -Matt 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Derbeth talk 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Jguk 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I left a message on her talk page. --JMRyan 23:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support As per my previously stated standard of being inactive for > 1 year --Rob Horning 10:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral --Kernigh 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sysop rights removed by Steward. -Matt 23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)