Meta:Administrators/confirm

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Meta:Administrators
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Cometstyles (talk | contribs) at 23:43, 20 July 2008. It may differ significantly from the current version.
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Meta administrators (confirmation) Archives →
Shortcut:
WM:A/C
This page hosts annual confirmation (or removal) of administrators according to the Administrator policies. Please vote to either keep or remove the following users as admins. If you think any of these administrators should not keep their access, please add Remove below. Please do not vote keep if there is no remove yet. Admins will keep their access if there are no votes, or more than 75% keeps.
Confirmations end 21st July 00:00 (UTC)

Andrevan

Andrevan (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)
  • Keep Keep, active on the Interwiki map which requires admin access. Nakon 02:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove Remove He was basically inactive till last month, when he made a series of edits over 8 days, mostly arguing on a request for bureaucratship. He promptly disappeared again on the 12th. He's still active on his home project, but seems to have abandoned here again. I don't think there'll be any net benefit in keeping him as an admin. Majorly talk 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove Remove - he only became active for a reason and since it wasn't fulfilled, he won't be back, so in other words, as I opposed his RfB based on his activity, I will do the same again and 2 edits to that protected page doesn't really show his activity...--Cometstyles 12:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Just a note, his last 150 edits go back to year 2005 and 150 edits in 3 years in really not worth giving a second thought to in terms of "activity levels" ...--Cometstyles 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Keep based on June activity. I'm not going to indulge in speculation about his likely future activity - that's for him to know and I don't read minds. Maybe someone should ask him? Andrevan is a sensible editor willing to help out who should retain admin access - I certainly see no harm in him doing so. WjBscribe 14:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am in the same state of mind as WJB for now; I'd like to hear his opinion before I make a boldface remark. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{neutral}} pending possible input from Andre. Daniel (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep Keep per the fact that Andre edited the interwiki map - an administrator action - within the last month. He did so on three separate occasions. Daniel (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Keep, per Nakon. Alex Pereira falaê 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove Remove per Majorly, based upon previous contributions I don't foresee a future level of contributions to warrant retaining admin rights although will be interested in any comment from this user about this. Adambro 19:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Keep, per Nakon. --.snoopy. 21:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - not inactive, and he edited the Interwiki map recently. Korg 16:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove Remove I've thought about this one long & hard. I've been here long enough to see bursts of activity which lead to an Rf* and in many cases those of us who work here rarely see the user again. In the end I believe Cometstyles is correct here and a burst of activity that was related to a request does not count as genuinely active to me. Prior to that there was little interest in Meta. --Herby talk thyme 11:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Keep per Nakon --Fabexplosive The archive man 13:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove Remove I had considered this previously, but ended up removing my comments. Since then, I've considered this one, and reviewed their activity more thoroughly. Given the circumstances around the RFB, I don't see this user as being meaningfully active, so removal of the tools here is appropriate, IMO.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove Remove Since I neither know the user nor saw him ever edit, I did't have an opinion by myself prior to reading other statements. So it was not an easy decision, since both keep and remove voters brought good arguments across. But for me the ones of the remove side were simply stronger. --Thogo (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Keep as he has had some activity since his RfB, so I'd rather assume good faith. —Giggy 06:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove Remove due to inactivity. Huji 18:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral Per nakon. He might come back so lets assume good faith here. Mww113 18:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Datrio

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

Edward Z. Yang

Edward Z. Yang (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)

Elian

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

GerardM

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

Herbythyme

Herbythyme (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)
  • Question: Can a checkuser please state how active this user is with the Checkuser tool? Thanks. Majorly talk 00:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not looking in the logs obviously, but Herby is certainly active on the mailing list.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    DateNumber of checks
    June 200830++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    May 200828++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    April 200837+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    March 200812++++++++++++
    February 200817+++++++++++++++++
    January 200819+++++++++++++++++++
    December 200710++++++++++
    November 200716++++++++++++++++
    October 200722++++++++++++++++++++++
    September 200715+++++++++++++++
    —{admin} Pathoschild 04:42:38, 01 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, hard working on spam issues, good colleague MoiraMoira 10:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Keep --Jacob 12:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please don't vote keep unless there are remove vote(s). Majorly talk 12:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Keep Checkuser needs admin status.--Ahonc 09:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Not even a question in my mind. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Keep Selbsverstandlich. -- Avi 06:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Keep per Ahonc. ~Innvs: 01:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Keep Yep, herby uses the tools very well so I see no issue by having herby another year. --Kanonkas 07:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JzG

JzG (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)
I don't remember *where* but he's still active behind the scenes (OTRS particularly, especially regarding spammers...) I think it would probably be a good idea to leave admin rights, as he's been very helpful on the spam blacklist. Majorly talk 12:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Majorly is right, I am busy IRL right now but keeping up with at least some issues via the mailing lists. For example, I'm lobbying Jimbo to rename the blacklists to avert the steady stream of complaints by justly blacklisted not-technically-spamers. JzG 13:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nakon

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

oscar

oscar (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)
  • i have been rather busy [1] [2] at nl.wikipedia.org lately, but i do keep an eye on meta every once in a while though, it's just that i have not found much time lately... all the best, oscar 10:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question: Can a checkuser please state how active this user is with the Checkuser tool? Thanks. Majorly talk 00:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    DateNumber of checks
    July 20080
    June 20080
    May 20080
    April 20080
    March 20080
    February 20080
    January 20080
    December 20070
    November 20070
    October 20070
    September 20070
    August 20070
    July 20070
    June 20070
    May 20070
    April 20071+
    —{admin} Pathoschild 04:46:07, 01 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Should Oscar not have lost his checkuser access per the one year rule, or does the one year rule refer to general contributions and not just checkuser actions? Daniel (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I believe he should have lost his rights a month ago, but there is no way of knowing that unless we have this confirmations..--Cometstyles 06:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove Remove checkuser flag--Nick1915 - all you want 10:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove Remove Checkuser flag - should have lost it some time ago... Majorly talk 11:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove Remove CU and 'crat bits (keep admin - he's marginally active with that one :\)  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Remove Remove 'crat too.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove Remove checkuser access, Keep Keep administrator and bureaucrat access. Daniel (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove Remove CU, Keep Keep admin. Alex Pereira falaê 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove Remove CU and admin. Doesn't seem to make much use of either unless I'm missing something. Adambro 19:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Keep admin, neutral about CU access. --Erwin(85) 10:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Keep MoiraMoira 10:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Keep - and since he is one of only two checkusers on :nl, I don't think it's a good idea to remove it. Zanaq 10:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Having CU on nlwiki, and having CU here are different things.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Keep - 58.8.110.218 10:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please log in to vote. Majorly talk 12:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pathoschild

Pathoschild (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)
  • Question: Can a checkuser please state how active this user is with the Checkuser tool? Thanks. Majorly talk 00:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    DateNumber of checks
    July 20081+
    June 20082++
    May 20080
    April 20080
    March 20080
    February 200813+++++++++++++
    January 20084++++
    December 20070
    November 20070
    October 20072++
    September 20072++
    August 20070
    July 20077+++++++
    June 20078++++++++
    May 20077+++++++
    —{admin} Pathoschild 04:41:00, 01 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep CU as well. --Jacob 12:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please don't vote keep unless there are remove vote(s). Majorly talk 12:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Why? If certain user who is (for example) going to take a long wikibreak and wants to keep this user as an admin here shouldn't vote? If he/she doesn't do that and at the end of the voting period there appears one or several people who want to remove Pathoschild's admin rights, what he/she can then do to have his/her voice heard (remember that he/she is then away)? –Ejs-80 12:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • This is a good point for dropping this "rule" next time. But that should be discussed on the talk page I think. --Thogo (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Infact the reason why I had voted was because I was not sure whether I would have been able to check this page back before the confirmatione expired(and the original statement said "maynot" and not "please donot"). I am active on multiple wiki projects. --Jacob 23:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{#ifThereAreRemoveVotes|Keep Keep|}} - Hillgentleman 18:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Which is rather pointless really as I've said on the talk page because if someone voted remove then you'd expect them to make a good case why just as the community should expect you to make a good case. "Keep" votes are of no value whatsoever before anyone votes "remove". At that point everyone should reassess the user and any votes prior should be considered to have little value since they may have been made without knowledge of what could be serious concerns. Adambro 21:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As far as I can see, meta benefits in his having adminship.{{#ifThereAreRemoveVotesPleaseKindlyCallMe, otherwise Keep Keep|}}Hillgentleman 09:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snowdog

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

Suisui

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

Tangotango

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

Thogo

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

UninvitedCompany

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

Zocky

Zocky (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Administrators/confirm&oldid=1093140"