Meta:Administrators/confirm/Archives/2009-01

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 January 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Contents

.anaconda [edit]

.anaconda (talk • email • contributions • blocks • deletions • protections • rights • renames • count)

Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat

  • {{keep}} - Active & trusted.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I thought I had missed something. Per Majorly, this isn't really as active as I'd like. I see steward stuff, but very little for the Meta community. Remove Remove both.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - per Majorly (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Mike Abigor talk 01:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove both. Not especially active with either (none since November, one in October, and fewer than 100 through the entire year). Majorly talk 02:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Change to Keep Keep both. He's somewhat active as a bureaucrat (moreso than an admin it seems), and bureaucrat w/out admin seems weird. Majorly talk 15:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Per Mike --Fabexplosive The archive man 15:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - sadly wasn't as active as i hoped he would be ...--Cometstyles 06:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove as Majorly says. Alex Pereira falaê 12:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep He's done a handfull of user renames and rights changes, and it's otherwise silly to let someone keep bureaucrat but remove adminship. Kylu 03:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove because it seems there is no need for these permissions now. Huji 14:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - has used admin and crat in the past year. I think we're making a bit too much of a big deal of meta admin and crat rights if we remove them from a steward who finds occasional use for them. Plenty of trust, no harm, some benefit for the community. WJBscribe (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - wasn't sure about this one & then WJBscribe reminded why (thanks!). I think any steward should have admin rights on Meta for the duration of their stewarship. As such keep sysop. However I would be inclined to Remove Remove crat. Despite some of the drivel comments on this page tools are granted by a community based on the fact that they will be used, not for any other reason at all.. I trust .anaconda completely, however if they are not using the tools then there is no need for them to be kept and this is no criticism of the user. --Herby talk thyme 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • With all due respect to Herby and Mike, Keep Keep both sysop and 'crat. There are not a huge number of 'crat actions needed each year and a fairly large pool of 'crats but however rarely, when there is something urgent needed, they are needed. ++Lar: t/c 06:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    Indeed, there is not a huge number of 'crat actions needed each year. Thus, not a huge number of 'crats are needed. This is about the community's need for someone to be performing the actions - there simply isn't that much need, as evidenced by the logs. As such, those who aren't doing work are surplus and thus unneeded. This is a general principle which applies to all.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but that argument makes no sense to me whatsoever. A large number of 'crats available for a limited number of 'crat actions hurts nothing, versus a smaller number of 'crats, where a single person retiring (or, more realistically, several either happening to be on wikibreaks) is more detrimental. Not very detrimental, I'll warrant you, but the argument that fewer people to do the same amount of work is a good thing... does not compute. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Majorly. Daniel (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.snoopy. ✉ 08:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Akl [edit]

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

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

  • Remove Remove - only 7 edits in 2008 and no log actions since September 2006 ...--Cometstyles 00:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Cometstyles (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - inactive.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - inactive - Abigor talk 01:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove. MBisanz talk 01:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. –Ejs-80 01:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. Majorly talk 02:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove due to inactivity. --Kanonkas 15:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Per Comety --Fabexplosive The archive man 15:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per inactive. Alex Pereira falaê 12:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Last confirmation, Akl [1] noted his need to edit MediaWiki pages here for fundraiser activities and hoped that we trust him (Especially as the Executive Director of Wikimedia Germany) to not abuse the tools. While trust is no issue, lack of use is: Given both his position and levels of activity, I suggest the local rights be removed for non-use, and a recommendation be given to the WMF Board of Trustees to offer Akl the Staff global right instead. Indeed, the global right was created for the convenience of those in exactly this predicament. Kylu 02:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    Correction: I'm told that he's no longer the ED of WMDE (WOTTA!), so would not qualify as staff. Kylu 00:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove (activity) xaosflux Talk 05:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove due to inactivity. Huji 14:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Kylu's well-written argument. If he needs admin-like privileges, he should be in the Staff group. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Result: Rights removed. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

alnokta [edit]

The following discussion is closed.
alnokta (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

  • Remove Remove - inactive in using the sysop tools for the benefit of the Meta community.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral - Abigor talk 01:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - per mike ..--Cometstyles 01:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. Majorly talk 02:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Mike.lifeguard (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Mike --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Mike. Alex Pereira falaê 12:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not currently active, so if you want to Remove Remove it, go ahead. Mike, are you saying that I'm using the sysop tools for the benefit of another community? :)--Alnokta 13:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Removed per agreement above. Majorly talk 15:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

AmiDaniel [edit]

The following discussion is closed: Desysopped per request. Daniel (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
AmiDaniel (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

  • Remove Remove, last log entry one year ago :( Daniel (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    Not saying he's active, but his last edit (June 2008) counts as an administrator action in my book. Cbrown1023 talk 01:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove, Anyone in contact? NonvocalScream 00:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - per Daniel ...--Cometstyles 00:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Daniel (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - inactive.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - not active enough - Abigor talk 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove. MBisanz talk 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. Majorly talk 02:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. --Herby talk thyme 13:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Daniel --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Go ahead and remove 'em ... I haven't had any time to work on WM in a good year ... hopefully I'll find some time next year, but am happy to go back through the process of having them restored. AmiDaniel 19:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Woops, that last one was me. AmiDaniel 19:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Andre Engels [edit]

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

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

  • Keep Keep - active & trusted.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - per Mike.lifeguard (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - Abigor talk 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Mike. MBisanz talk 01:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Majorly talk 02:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Alex Pereira falaê 12:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Dferg (T-ES) 19:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Ahonc 15:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral - not sure about incidents like this or this - Andre Engels strikes me as a little self-destructive for the rights he currently has - but then it's not really meta adminship that I'm worried about... WJBscribe (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    As you've said, while this is concerning, it's also not a situation that relates directly to our confirmations. We should try to offer support instead. Kylu 17:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    I'd like to add to this worry of WJBscribe, that IMHO Andre is doing a great job as steward, he works a lot in the SWMT area (therefore people here might not notice the work he is doing), and his "throwing in the towels" were only related to problems at nl.wiki afaik, thanks for Your attention, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 03:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.snoopy. ✉ 08:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Result: Rights confirmed. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Angela [edit]

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

Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat

  • Keep Keep both. Daniel (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep all. Recent logs scanned, all good. NonvocalScream 00:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Daniel (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - Not active using the sysop tools on behalf of the Meta community & is already a member of the global steward group (and thus may take emergency action in accordance with the steward policies).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep both. MBisanz talk 01:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - both - Abigor talk 01:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep admin, Remove Remove bureaucrat. Majorly talk 02:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Alex Pereira falaê 12:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep admin rights (well used), Remove Remove bureaucrat rights as unused. Removal of the bureaucrat rights should not impede her activities here, given the special relationship between Meta and Stewards. While a member of the staff global group, Angela has also been an active participant on Meta and should therefore keep those rights that are used. Kylu 02:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop Remove Remove 'crat, per similar replies above. xaosflux Talk 05:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes; Keep Keep sysop but Remove Remove crat. Huji 14:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep both, see analysis of why at .anaconda ++Lar: t/c 06:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep both, I find it quite senseless to remove crat if that can be get back by just asking for it, so removing crat now and one day later she asks for cratship... unecessary rightsbackandforthchanging... --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Unlike with .anaconda, Angela has not used bureaucrat rights for well over a year which is our standard length of time for inactivity. She cannot just go back and ask for them again, she'll have to wait six months like everyone else. Once you lose them, you start from scratch. We won't be just handing them back if she's hardly active. Majorly talk 15:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
      • That makes no sense, she is a steward and could rename here anyway. I don't get the point, but please note that this is just my opinion and please accept it, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Stewards can't rename. It makes perfect sense to me. We have an inactivity policy for a reason, and it should be followed for every user right (except steward). Angela has not made a single bureaucrat action for over a year, so she's inactive, and won't be able to just ask for it back straight after. I can't see what is difficult to understand about that. Majorly talk 16:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Sure they can, it is in the global group. It makes sense to You - fine. It does not make sense to me. You have one voice, I have one voice too, please respect this, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 18:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.snoopy. ✉ 08:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop, Remove Remove 'crat. guillom 13:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep both. Pretty much any activity is good enough for me, though I do think it's a bit pointless given her stewardship. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Walter 21:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Result: [The bureaucrat chat] is pretty close, but I think there is consensus here to keep both rights. Also judging by the original vote, it was only 10% off the 75% mark, so no need to take further action here. Majorly talk 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Anthere [edit]

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

Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat, checkuser

Special:CheckUser/log says: no action in 2008, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 17:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep all. Daniel (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC), but Remove Remove checkuser per Spacebirdy's inactivity comment above (and per checkuser policy). Daniel (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep all. It is Anthere. NonvocalScream 00:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Daniel (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • For sysop, Keep Keep. For bureaucrat, Remove Remove for inactivity. For CU, would someone please check Special:CheckUser/log & let us know how much she uses the tool?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks Birdy. Remove Remove CU.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep all. MBisanz talk 01:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - sysop Remove Remove cu - Abigor talk 01:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep admin, Remove Remove bureaucrat. CU pending. Majorly talk 02:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop, Remove Remove 'crat & CU. guillom 09:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep admin, Remove Remove bureaucrat and checkuser. Alex Pereira falaê 12:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep adminship, Remove Remove bureaucrat and checkuser due to inactivity. Kylu 02:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop, Remove Remove crat and CU xaosflux Talk 05:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop, Remove Remove cart, Keep Keep CU because I trust her to monitor other CUs. Huji 14:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, the CheckUser policy is quite clear on this point. One year of inactivity = removal of access. She hasn't used the tool in one year.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    That's very much untrue: "Any user account with CheckUser status that is inactive for more than a year will have their CheckUser access be removed." (emphasis added) Anthere has used her account to make edit, ergo it is not an inactive account. In no way does the policy mention that the person has to be active according the log. Furthermore, if you read what Huji said, he said he trusts her to "monitor other CUs". That's what she does with the tool and it wouldn't be logged. Cbrown1023 talk 15:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    For information I have requested the removal of CUs who have not used the tool for 12 months as have other projects & stewards have done so. With complete absence of use it would be impossible to know if any user was actually monitoring others. --Herby talk thyme 15:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    Either way, it's not "quite clear" as Mike puts it. Cbrown1023 talk 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    Perhaps we should ask the Board to clarify the policy somewhat? They might even respond. :) Kylu 17:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    Somehow I doubt that. As Herby points out, the common reading of the policy is exactly what I stated.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep all three, see analysis of why at .anaconda (as a note, a CU can review the log of CU actions taken, without actually performing a check. This review is not itself logged, so examining the log will not in and of itself definitively determine if nothing "CU related" was done. ++Lar: t/c 06:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • But we have plenty of active checkusers who can review checks made. I don't see the point in an extra if I'm honest (who wasn't even elected by the community). Majorly talk 15:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep both, I find it quite senseless to remove crat if that can be get back by just asking for it, so removing crat now and one day later she asks for cratship... unecessary rightbackandforthchanging... and Keep Keep cu if she still needs/wants access to the logs, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Unlike with .anaconda, Anthere has not used bureaucrat rights for well over a year which is our standard length of time for inactivity. She cannot just go back and ask for them again, she'll have to wait six months like everyone else. Once you lose them, you start from scratch. We won't be just handing them back if she's hardly active. Majorly talk 15:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.snoopy. ✉ 08:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep all three, per the dissenting argument that activity in one area is good enough for all others. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous Dissident [edit]

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

Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat

Arria Belli [edit]

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

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

  • Remove Remove, last log entry one year ago :( Daniel (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Daniel (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - inactive, sadly.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove. MBisanz talk 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Mike. Majorly talk 02:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove, per Mike. Alex Pereira falaê 12:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove (come back, we miss you!) Kylu 02:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove (Activity) xaosflux Talk 05:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Rather inactive (both in logs and conribs) here, as well as mildly inactive at the home wiki. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Result: Rights removed. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Brion VIBBER [edit]

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

Rights to be confirmed: sysop, checkuser

  • Keep Keep both. Daniel (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Remove Remove both per Mike, purely because they're redundant (and for no other reason). Daniel (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep all. Why does the foundation's paid dev need confirmation? NonvocalScream 00:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - sysop, though he really doesn't need it Oppose remove Checkuser, he has probably never used it so not needed, local CU's can take care of it ...--Cometstyles 00:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep both, per Daniel (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Remove both, per EVula (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - Already in the appropriate global groups per Requests for comments/Wikimedia Foundation staff permissions, which gives him access to any permissions he requires for work.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep both. MBisanz talk 01:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Abigor talk 01:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep both unless they're redundant. Majorly talk 02:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    They are redundant to the permissions he has/can access via the global group, which was the whole point of creating it, IIRC.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Eh, Remove Remove both then. Majorly talk 15:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop but Remove Remove CU --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove all as redundant to global permissions. Adambro 17:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove local rights as unused: He still has both staff and sysadmin global access. Kylu 03:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Brion's position within the Foundation supersedes both his need for baser flags and the need for confirmation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove, per Mike. Alex Pereira falaê 12:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove due to redundancy. Since he is staff group member and therefore equipped with these rights globally it's not necessary to confirm these local rights on Meta every year. --Thogo (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove both, redundant with global group (granted for the reason he has these) xaosflux Talk 05:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove them both, because they were both arbitrary, and he has the power and trust to perform those activities and beyond. Huji 14:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep as a dev can decide himself if he needs this or not, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 03:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    I think the only reason Brion and the other sysadmins haven't removed their bits yet is because they're quite busy with other things. We made the sysadmin group so they can have whatever permissions they need and not have to deal with "community policy issues" like the rest of us do. There's no reason to subject our CTO to the restrictions that this roll implies, whereas he has the same tools with fewer restrictions via the staff and sysadmin groups. In a nutshell: He could do so, but is too busy to bother with this. Sysadmin bits are our way of giving him a blanket exemption. Kylu 04:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keepboth --.snoopy. ✉ 08:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - per Mike the lifeguard. Hillgentleman 03:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Eloquence [edit]

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

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

EVula [edit]

EVula (talk • email • contributions • blocks • deletions • protections • rights • renames • count)

Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat

  • Keep Keep both. Daniel (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep all. Hangy down thing in throat. NonvocalScream 00:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Daniel (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop, but Remove Remove bureaucrat for inactivity.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    Obviously not going to argue the inactivity of my 'cratship here (though I'm looking for something to do and finding nothing, drats), but given the "why the hell not?"-ness of being a bureaucrat here, I have to admit that it strikes me as odd to be stripped of it. *shrug* Just an observation on my part. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    EVula, a right is not permanent, if you don't use it, you'll lose it...--Cometstyles 07:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    How can you miss something you've never used? Despite the number we have here, I've still found things to do. You're not even that active as an admin. When you become more active, perhaps reapply. Majorly talk 15:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not saying it should be permanent, nor was I saying that I'd miss it (as for admin activity, please note that I did help update all the portal pages with the new Meta logo; that counts as admin activity that isn't in a log). I was merely pointing out an oddness in regards to 'cratship being so closely tied to adminship, nothing more. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    For clarity: My comments are intended to be a criticism of the current method of "electing" bureaucrats in addition to being principled.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep both. MBisanz talk 01:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Abigor talk 01:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysops but Remove Remove cratship ...--Cometstyles 02:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep admin, Remove Remove bureaucrat. Majorly talk 02:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Change to keep both. I'm happy with just one rename. Majorly talk 20:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove bureaucrat per others --Herby talk thyme 13:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep both. Alex Pereira falaê 12:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep both. Gaining tools is a sign of trust. And it's not supposed to be a foot-race or a competition to find yourself tasks to do. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop Neutral Neutral as to 'crat. xaosflux Talk 05:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop, keep bureaucrat provided at least one bureaucrat action is performed on meta by the end of this reconfirmation. Not finding any use for a permission for 8 months does suggest it's not really needed. WJBscribe (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    I think it does mean that. Isn't that the point of confirmations? To remove those who are inactive or no longer trusted?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep both, see analysis of why at .anaconda ... also per OhanaUnited. It is indeed not supposed to be a footrace. ++Lar: t/c 06:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • .anaconda was elected a bureaucrat in July 2007 and has performed several bcrat actions. EVula has performed zero. Even with many bureaucrats, I think most people have at least done something. EVula has made fewer than 50 logged actions even as an admin. I cannot see the plus in keeping bureaucrat is. Majorly talk 15:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Since EVula has now performed a rename, I'm happy with him to continue as a bcrat. Majorly talk 20:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
        • So performing one rename is sufficient? Is it ok if it's an unnecessary rename? Either we trust EVula or we don't... I'm starting to think we need a more general discussion of policy here as it relates to activity. Either that or we all have to write bots to watch for incoming renames so we can race to be first to do them and qualify to keep our rights. ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Not for me, I'll stick with removal of crats per my comments here. if someone else changes their vote based on just this one rename, it would seem that our policy is flawed...--Cometstyles 03:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep both. Ohana sums up my view. X! 04:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.snoopy. ✉ 08:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep both.--Kwj2772 09:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

guillom [edit]

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

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

Hillgentleman [edit]

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

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

Korg [edit]

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

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

M7 [edit]

M7 (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections • count)

Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat

notafish [edit]

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

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

  • Keep Keep. Daniel (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Daniel (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, Daniel didn't even give a reason, and you're parroting him?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry I didn't clarify, merely that I agree with the comment by the prior user. Cirt (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - inactive.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Mike Abigor talk 01:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - per Mike..well said ...--Cometstyles 02:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Keep, she's kind of active. But not very. Majorly talk 02:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, of course. notafish is not inactive (see her edits); she may not use the sysop tools a lot, but that's not a reason to remove them. As long as a sysop edits regularly and is trusted enough (she does and she is), there's absolutely no reason to remove their tools. guillom 12:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, because she expressed the desire to stay active. Imho, one becomes inactive only when one really do not care anymore. Anthere :-)
  • Neutral Neutral --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Active enough, and a watchful eye. Kylu 03:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, per guillom and Kylu. Alex Pereira falaê 12:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per analysis at .anaconda ... also per guillom and Anthere and Kylu. ++Lar: t/c 06:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per guillom. Cbrown1023 talk 18:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.snoopy. ✉ 14:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Walter 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Spacebirdy [edit]

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

Rights to be confirmed: sysop, checkuser

  • Keep Keep. Daniel (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Daniel (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Obviously — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. MBisanz talk 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Strong Keep off course :) Abigor talk 01:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep definitely – great admin. –Ejs-80 01:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep CheckUser && sysop.--Kwj2772 02:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep both. Majorly talk 02:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep and so strongly (arguably one of the most capable & consistent CUs around) --Herby talk thyme 13:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep really active & good sysop. --Kanonkas 15:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Of course --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - whithout any doubt Dferg (T-ES) 18:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep óbvio que sim! Alex Pereira falaê 12:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep both. xaosflux Talk 05:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep them both. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Huji (talk • contribs) diff.
  • Keep Keep both. If meta could have only one admin, I'd want it to be Spacebirdy! Angela 04:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    {{keep}} 220.142.11.106 04:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, but you need to log in to participate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.snoopy. ✉ 14:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Walter 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Helpful to others. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep One of the best sysops on Meta. Definitely keep. --Meno25 20:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Result: Rights kept. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Tim Starling [edit]

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

Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat, checkuser

  • Keep Keep. Daniel (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Remove Remove per EVula. Daniel (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Dev. NonvocalScream 00:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Daniel (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Remove Remove, per assessment by EVula (talk · contribs), below. Cirt (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - Already in the appropriate global groups per Requests for comments/Wikimedia Foundation staff permissions.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. MBisanz talk 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Abigor talk 01:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. Majorly talk 02:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Is Tim Starling currently active on Meta as a checkuser? Kylu 03:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I just asked in #wikimedia-stewards and got a "no". EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep admin, Remove Remove bureaucrat and checkuser. Alex Pereira falaê 12:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove all. He has sysop/CU rights as a staff group member anyway (and he doesn't use the crat tools), no need to confirm these every year. --Thogo (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Staff members should (a) not have redundant flags, and (b) should not be up for reconfirmation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - all, I don't think he is an active CU since he has CU rights in multitudes of wikis and he is rarely active as an admin and never as a crat and as a 'global' staff, he has those rights anyways :) ...--Cometstyles 00:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove all, redundant with global group. xaosflux Talk 05:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove them sll, because they were both arbitrary, and he has the power and trust to perform those activities and beyond. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Huji (talk • contribs) --Dferg (T-ES) 16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC).
  • Keep Keep as a dev can decide himself if he needs this or not, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 03:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove as a dev hasn't got time to be bothered with it. Hillgentleman 03:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep it is much preferred when it is clear who can do what. Tim et al can do everything anyway and removing their admin bit makes this only less clear. Thanks, GerardM 12:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.snoopy. ✉ 14:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Walter [edit]

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

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Administrators/confirm/Archives/2009-01&oldid=2930305"