Meta:Administrators/confirm/Archives/2008-04

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in April 2008, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Contents

.snoopy. [edit]

.snoopy. (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Bastique [edit]

Bastique (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Cbrown1023 [edit]

Cbrown1023 (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Cspurrier [edit]

Cspurrier (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)
Note, cu has already been removed by the user himself.
  • Remove Remove Inactive since 2007-12-26. Suggest also removing checkuser tool if it hasn't been used too (I'm not too sure what the policy on the checkuser tool is, but it does get removed after a length of inactivity.) Majorly (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    I think all rights should be confirmed simultaneously. If the user is active either as an administrator or as a checkuser, they should not be removed for inactivity. Similarly, remove both if they're inactive. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:21:10, 01 April 2008 (UTC)
    With the exception of steward, right? What I'm saying is to remove both anyway. Majorly (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    Steward access is not based on Meta election, so it's not subject to Meta confirmation. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:27:37, 01 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - He is very active on English Wikinews but he hasn't made a single edit on Meta-Wiki this year, His last admin action was 3rd November and steward action (which doesn't count) on 20th December, if he is willing to be active here, he can keep the tools but otherwise, I don't think he needs the sysop tools on Meta and some stewards do quite well without the sysop tools like Darkoneko ..--Cometstyles 05:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove for inactivity, and someone should check the CU logs. I'd say if it's close to a year, remove that too. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    He performed a series of checks on 13–16 March 2007. According to the logs, he's otherwise never used his checkuser access. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:28:32, 01 April 2008 (UTC)
    According to the checkuser policy, it should automatically be removed after a year of inactivity. Pathoschild, would you mind checking the other checkusers here for activity? Thanks, Majorly (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, will do. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:55:44, 01 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove for inactivity - same for checkuser unless surprises. Snowolf How can I help? 13:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Due to inactivity --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Alex Pereira falaê 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive, but I just left him a message on Wikinews to alert him of this. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks EVula for the note. I intend to be more active on meta in the coming months. Other responsibilities have led me to neglect Meta, but I intend to change that :). I can not really remember why I have checkuser, but since meta has gotten local checkusers I have not used it and it should be removed, as I have done. --Cspurrier 17:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep admin but maybe revisit in 3 months instead of a year? Remove Remove checkuser. ++Lar: t/c 00:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove I'm afraid. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep as an admin: Steward & current inactive clause says "0 edits within 6 months and 50 edits within a year". He doesn't meet that. --Aphaia 12:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove as CU, due to inactivity. --Aphaia 12:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove as both; even if within the letter of the rules he could stay as an admin, he is clearly rather inactive.--Cato 22:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, user wants to be more active here, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 01:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I share spacebirdy's opinion. --Jacob 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Cspurrier. --Thogo (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Inactive, but user is willing to make up for it. Sr13 07:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove planning to be active is not the same as being so. I'm sure when the user is active again seeking the rights will be fine. (CU will have been granted for "log access" and is no longer valid as there is no cross wiki log) --Herby talk thyme 06:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - current stewards should IMO have sysop rights on meta. WjBscribe 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - Not completely inactive. Korg 16:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

8 keep, 10 remove.

    • Removed due to inactivity(44%)..--Cometstyles 12:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Drini [edit]

Drini (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Dungodung [edit]

Dungodung (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Effeietsanders [edit]

Effeietsanders (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Fantasy [edit]

Fantasy (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)
  • Remove Remove Inactive since 2007-11-16, and appears to have left. Majorly (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Nishkid64 (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive and last admin action on May 2007 ..--Cometstyles 05:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --Az1568 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove inactive, sadly. Snowolf How can I help? 13:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove inactive. Alex Pereira falaê 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove He left Wikipedia.--Ahonc 15:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove no he left meta, it isn't same to leave Wikipedia. Due to inactivity and thousand appreciations for all his works done on meta and the community at large! --Aphaia 12:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --LadyInGrey 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Let's let him go. Sr13 07:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove -- KTC 23:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hashar [edit]

Hashar (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)
  • Remove Remove Inactive since 2007-05-05. Majorly (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Nishkid64 (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - Last admin action in 2005, no need for the tools..--Cometstyles 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --Az1568 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove last admin action indeed in 2005. Snowolf How can I help? 13:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove inactive. Alex Pereira falaê 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove inactive --Ahonc 15:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral inactive enough, but he as a sysadmin is around there at least on #wikimedia-tech. I think we are better to let him retain the sysop access as long as he is around, even vaguely. --Aphaia 12:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --LadyInGrey 21:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. –Ejs-80 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove -- KTC 23:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

JamesDay [edit]

JamesDay (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)
  • Remove Remove Inactive since 2007-08-08, and no logged actions. Majorly (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Nishkid64 (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - Inactive and no-admin action since given the tools ..--Cometstyles 05:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --Az1568 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove FiLiP ¤ 09:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove no action in the logs at all. Snowolf How can I help? 13:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove No longer active --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per above. Alex Pereira falaê 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactivity. I heard he is also inactive as a sysadmin. --Aphaia 12:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Clarification: Wikitech shows his last activity as 23 August 2007 [1] and he apparently no longer has SVN access [2][3] since May 2006. No logged actions on Meta [4] at all. Further input from other developers would be appreciated. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove -- KTC 23:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jon Harald Søby [edit]

Jon Harald Søby (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Kate [edit]

Kate (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)
  • Remove Remove - Kate is vaguely "around" but isn't using the tools. I consider this user inactive as an administrator. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral Well, Kate is a steward, so the question of his adminship here has no relevance in my eyes. FiLiP ¤ 09:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • He has recently denied even being a steward... Majorly (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • What do you mean? That he has the steward flag as developer? ('cause that I recall) Snowolf How can I help? 13:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral Pretty inactive. Majorly (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - well he is a developer and can change his rights via the server and the Steward flag is not an important issue, since he believes he is not a Steward, but he assigned himself as a steward to make his workload bearable..--Cometstyles 14:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral per Dungodung --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Need input from River himself — VasilievVV 16:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove inactive. Alex Pereira falaê 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Dungodung.--Ahonc 15:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral inactive. When he needs the tools, he can easily either ask someone in the IRC channel, or make himself sysop with his steward buttons. --Thogo (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Changed to neutral, per Aphaia.
  • Keep Keep Current inactive clause says "0 edits within 6 months and 50 edits within a year". He doesn't meet that. --Aphaia 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove inactive --Charitwo 23:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep active system administrator. Cary Bass demandez 23:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per cary. Snowolf How can I help? 23:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Jacob 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Cary. Philippe 14:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Developer trumps inactivity guidelines, in my estimation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Kate is a developer who is not that active on meta unlike Brion and because of that I believe he doesn't need adminship status here, and BTW since he is a dev, he can temporarily assign himself as a sysop to make changes to MediaWiki related changes and remove it when not in use..--Cometstyles 02:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, but that's an extra step that, frankly, I don't see much point in forcing them to do. Trustworthiness is definitely not an issue here, only their inactivity; I choose to disregard that issue, though I certainly won't act like I don't understand why someone else may not make the same choice. If Kate wasn't a developer, I'd be singing a whole different tune. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --A. B. (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per all keep above .--Tarawneh 02:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral - low activity and Kate hasn't even expressed an interest in keeping the tools here. WjBscribe 18:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - Not completely inactive. Korg 16:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

10 keep, 4 remove

    • Kept, The user is an active dev that needs to use the tool time and again to fix the MediaWiki errors on multiple wikis which can be done easily through Meta (71%) ..--Cometstyles 12:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Kph [edit]

Kph (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Lar [edit]

Lar (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Majorly [edit]

Majorly (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)
  • Comment Comment: Formal support will be given if willing to understand and agree w:Wikipedia:BITE and w:WP:AGF, as suggested by RfA Candidate's Song.--Jusjih 02:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Would you care to explain what you mean? Thanks, Majorly (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Mønobi 02:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Controversial, yes. Abused tools, no. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - Majorly is really very active on Meta and I doubt that he will ever abuse the tools..--Cometstyles 05:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Nishkid64 is spot-on. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Az1568 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep FiLiP ¤ 09:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Snowolf How can I help? 13:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, and thanks for the work done in this year — VasilievVV 16:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.snoopy. 19:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am adding my unnecessary Keep Keep to the list. A very hardworking bureaucrat and an asset to the project. ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • keep. Without any doubt. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Alex Pereira falaê 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Ahonc 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Good value.--Cato 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Mardetanha 22:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Has maturity issues, behavior on other projects affects my opinion on a global scale. --Charitwo 23:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Mature and hardworking es:Drini 23:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Maturity is not a requirement for Admin. Majorly acts in his role in an exceptional manner. Cary Bass demandez 00:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, hard working on meta, if someone doesn't like him on other wikis, bad for them good for us. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 00:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep With no doubts. · AndonicO Talk 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Chetblong 02:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment as the rule said, this confirmation is not intended to be voting, but rather designed to give the community a chance to raise their concerns around the current sysop each: So I think it isn't inappropriate some people show their concerns, in this case, maturity etc. I hope this issue is settled through productive interactions with interested parties. Aph.
  • Keep Keep Hardworking, no abuse, no reason to remove the flag. --Aphaia 07:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep No reason why not. --Thogo (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Great contributor. Sr13 07:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Philippe 14:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Meno25 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep from Wikipedia Alexfusco5 19:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, and strongly too: he is not an abusive person. Removing Majorly's tools would be an error. Acalamari 21:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. I was hesitant at supporting this, simply because it would seem like a "support: he's a friend" vote. I do, however, honestly think Majorly's being sysopped has a positive effect on Meta. Sure, he's very robust in his word choice, and isn't afraid to state his mind. Perhaps he's a little controversial. Per Nishkid, however, he's not abusive, and indeed, is a great admin. Fully support his being reconfirmed. Anthøny 10:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Tarawneh 02:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. WjBscribe 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - Definitely. Maximillion Pegasus 21:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- KTC 23:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Millosh [edit]

Millosh (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Nick1915 [edit]

Nick1915 (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Nishkid64 [edit]

Nishkid64 (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Nixeagle [edit]

Nixeagle (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Redux [edit]

Redux (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)
  • Keep Keep active. Majorly (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Nishkid64 (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Az1568 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep FiLiP ¤ 09:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Snowolf How can I help? 13:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • By Majorly's request, I checked how active the checkusers on Meta were. According to the logs, Redux has never used his checkuser access. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:02:08, 01 April 2008 (UTC)
    • In that case, I suggest that while he should be kept as an admin, he should remove his checkuser right. Majorly (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Was it granted the normal way? Or was it granted as a steward, like we did for some others (who already were removed)... If the latter, there is no reason in my view at this time to keep it, regardless of any other outcomes, as stewards used to have it to get access to the global log. The log is no longer global, hence no need. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
        • He granted it to himself. [5]. Majorly (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks for digging that up, Majorly. I would say that's a CU remove then. ++Lar: t/c 23:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.snoopy. 19:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Alex Pereira falaê 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep as sysop, but remove CU access. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - keep his admin, strip him of his self-given CU. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove CU.--Cato 22:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove as CU... Keep Keep - as Admin ...--Cometstyles 19:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep as sysop only, --Thogo (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep of course. Acalamari 21:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    Note: I've gone ahead and taken care of the CU bit myself (here). It is indeed true that circumstances on Meta have changed, and it is no longer necessary for Stewards to be on standby as local CUs, now that we have active, regular users filling the shoes. So there's no need to wait until this concludes to do the sensible thing. Redux 04:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- KTC 23:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, and good move resigning the CU bit. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Kept as admin but Checkuser was removed by Redux himself..--Cometstyles 06:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sean Whitton [edit]

Sean Whitton (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)
  • Keep Keep Nishkid64 (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep FiLiP ¤ 09:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral Inactive for 2 months, but he's apparently busy in real life... Majorly (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral last admin action last december and only a couple of actions at all, but no problem in him keeping the tools. As Majorly said, it appears he's busy in real life... Snowolf How can I help? 14:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. I know that Sean is too busy in real life :(. Though he's not going to leave the proect as far as I know — VasilievVV 16:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Alex Pereira falaê 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Current inactive clause says "0 edits within 6 months and 50 edits within a year". He doesn't meet that. --Aphaia 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Meno25 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- KTC 23:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Shanel [edit]

Shanel (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Sj [edit]

Sj (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Slade [edit]

Slade (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)
  • Keep Keep Nishkid64 (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - Only 4 edits this year, and last admin action in November 2007 (protecting own archive page), too inactive for my liking...--Cometstyles 05:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - I agree with Cometstyles. Not active = no tools. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Per above. --Az1568 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Pretty inactive. Majorly (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove inactive. Snowolf How can I help? 14:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral 4 edits is not 0... --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.snoopy. 19:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral per Fabexplosive. Alex Pereira falaê 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Active enough. --Thogo (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Current inactive clause says "0 edits within 6 months and 50 edits within a year". He doesn't meet that. --Aphaia 11:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Doesn't meet inactivity clause. --Jacob 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove as inactive — VasilievVV 06:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral May not meet the inactivity guidelines, but certainly not active enough for my taste. I've alerted the user of this reconfirmation on his (apparent) home wiki, pt.wp. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Cometstyles. Inactivity guidelines are... well, guidelines. I don't think Slade is active here. WjBscribe 18:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Random thought, but perhaps the guidelines may need to be upped? EVula raises a good point: if the guidelines are still not sufficient to mark an active and an inactive admin, surely they are insufficient? Anthøny 10:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - Not completely inactive. Korg 16:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Xaosflux [edit]

xaosflux (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Yann [edit]

Yann (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Zanimum [edit]

Zanimum (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)
Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Administrators/confirm/Archives/2008-04&oldid=2217153"