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)
Bureaucrats: Please feel free to close any unanimous decisions yourselves and effect the changes once the confirmations end, but please use permanent links in the user rightlogs and not just remove right as "failing confirmation" etc. Any non-unanimous decisions should be discussed on /bureaucrat chat with other bureaucrats first. Thank you.
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. Majorlytalk 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 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 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]
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]
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. --Herbytalk thyme 11:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 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 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 due to inactivity. Huji 18:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Per nakon. He might come back so lets assume good faith here. Mww113 18:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{remove}} hardly ever made any log actions at all; last edit was well over a month ago, as an aside. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Majorly makes a fair point about spam blacklist work, so I'll need time to think. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Blacklist work is admin work. He's only been gone a month, but has stated he's on a break. Majorlytalk 12:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is the info that he is on a break? Thanks --Herbytalk thyme 12:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. Majorlytalk 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]
Keep Active enough and taking break into consideration. Cbrown1023talk 14:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. Majorlytalk 00:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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]
Keep CU as well. --Jacob 12:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please don't vote keep unless there are remove vote(s). Majorlytalk 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]
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|}}Hillgentleman 09:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For your information his last edit on jawiki (assumed as home wiki) was on March 31, 2007. He closed his wikimedia related blog in a certain point. Seem to leave the project. --Aphaia 12:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't disagree. :) This was just a minor correction. Korg 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove per this edit. Anyone who removes a listing from the blacklist without request or consultation and does not respond to a plea for information should not have admin rights in my view. --Herbytalk thyme 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, active on the Interwiki map which requires admin access. Nakon 02:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
Neutral Per nakon. He might come back so lets assume good faith here. Mww113 18:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep, active on the 
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 
Neutral Per nakon. He might come back so lets assume good faith here.