Jump to content

Meta:Administrators/confirm

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Herbythyme (talk | contribs) at 07:11, 21 October 2008 (Mindspillage: rm). It may differ significantly from the current version.
Shortcut:
WM:A/C
This page hosts annual confirmation (or removal) of administrator access according to the administrator policies. Please comment below if you think one of these users should keep or lose their access. Admins will keep their access if there are no votes, or more than 75% in favour.

Dbl2010 (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections) Rights to be confirmed: sysop

FrancoGG (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections) Rights to be confirmed: sysop

User joined Meta today. Majorly talk 17:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzheado (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections) Rights to be confirmed: sysop

HappyDog (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections) Rights to be confirmed: sysop

I suggest that when/if you do become active again, you request temporary adminship for this purpose. Majorly talk 09:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
when you requested Sysops on meta, you requested it for transwiki work between Metawiki and mediawikiwiki but after gaining adminship on meta, you only transwikied One thing which was an image, I'm not sure how you were even granted sysops back then, but I really don't think you will ever need sysops on Meta for it and I doubt i will be supporting any future adminship request, temporary or permanent ...--Cometstyles 10:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I don't understand your policy about sysop rights, but as far as I can see I don't meet any of the criteria at Meta:Administrators#Policy for de-adminship. Though I am not terribly active here, I am not inactive by the official definition. Also, the 'poll after a year' section says (re: sysop rights) Quit it if you do not need it. Lose it if people feel they cannot trust you. From my viewpoint, I need the rights as much as I did at my initial request, which is not often, but occasionally. This is primarily for updating the protected templates relating to MW.org, but also for occasional deletions relating to the same thing (note that I don't require any permissions for the actual transwiki process itself). Therefore, according to the meta admin policy, the only reason to remove the right is if people here do not trust me. If that is the case then I am a little worried, and would very much like to know what has caused that lack of trust! --HappyDog 10:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may help you to realize you fail to meet already a half of official active criteria: over 50 edits in a year, while you haven't been inactive for 6 months. Technically you are active but I won't oppose people who think of you as inactive. --Aphaia 12:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly want to get into an argument over this - it's up to the community whether I should stay an admin or not, and I'll go with whatever is decided. My point was just that I don't really see what benefit there is to the community to remove this right, or what harm there is to keep it. I also don't yet see what part of the official policy is being followed regarding this request. Contrary to Aphaia's comment above, the inactivity policy states you may lose the sysop right if you have "no edits in the past 6 months and less than 50 edits in the last year". That's an AND, not on OR, therefore that policy does not really apply here. --HappyDog 14:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat

Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat


Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat

Mindspillage (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections) Rights to be confirmed: sysop

  • Frankly, such temp adminships are at the discretion of the community, not the board member; she's free to request another one if she has need in the future. In all likelihood it would be granted with haste.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't "deserve" them. Board member != Meta adminship. Majorly talk 23:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For me, "Lack of Interest" ==> "not deserve" (one of the ways to judge which is inactivity) --Jacob 02:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mxn (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections) Rights to be confirmed: sysop

Patrick (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections) Rights to be confirmed: sysop

Raul654 (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections) Rights to be confirmed: sysop

Rdsmith4 (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

Rights to be confirmed: sysop


Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat

I really don't think ability to speak a language should have anything to do with being a bureaucrat. He's never used bureaucrat rights, in over 3 years of having them... I don't see him suddenly popping up in a discussion, where he'll have to use Chinese in his bureaucrat position... he's a plenty active admin, but has never, ever used bureaucrat tools, so I don't see the point in continuing with them. They aren't a reward you keep forever. Majorly talk 13:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderhead (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

Rights to be confirmed: sysop