Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Yann

+Administrator
I would like to become administrator in the English Wikibooks. I am already Administartor in the French Wikibooks, Wiktionary and Wikipedia, as well as Wikicommons and Wikisource. Thanks. Yann 12:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Support This user has only 325 edits, but has been here sense September, 2003, and seems to be a valuable contributor. Gentgeen 23:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Davodd 09:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support TUF-KAT 23:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support 82.69.58.117 04:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note, this user was admin'd, but not recorded here. - Aya T C 21:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all. I will do my best. Yann 10:34, 26 Oct 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 non-outlying edit 27 Sep 2005.

I sent a message to his active fr.wiki account. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Rights removed on 1 Nov 2006. -within focus 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)