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


.anaconda (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)


Akl (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

*Remove Remove No activity since October. Majorly (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Remove Remove No sysop action since 2006 (except two Mediawiki changes in October). --Thogo (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC) changed to Keep Keep. --Thogo (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - effectively inactive --Herby talk thyme 19:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

*remove -10 admin actions..and all in 2006..sorry :( ..--Cometstyles 19:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  • changed to Keep Keep..sorry, didn't see your very reasonable comment..--Cometstyles 14:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove no admin activity in the last year. --Meno25 20:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep Keep After reading Akl's comment. --Meno25 04:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove lack of admin activity. Sorry Jj137 22:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per all above. --Alastor Moody (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - not active. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep Keep - as Majorly has stated, Akl's rationale seems fair enough. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could rethink your opinions expressed above. I agree that I'm not doing much sysop work here, but from time I need the sysop rights to edit protected pages (last time during the fundraiser). I hope that as Executive Director of Wikimedia Deutschland I am trusted enough to keep the sysop rights, so I don't need to ask others to perform such changes for me. Would save a lot of time, which in my case is money (not mine, but donations made to Wikimedia). -- Arne (akl) 14:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Keep per Arne (akl)'s reasoning. --A. B. (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Fair enough. Majorly (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep fair reasoning. And he has been too active to meet the "meta inactivity criteria" (no edit in 6 mths & less than 50 edits in a year) --Aphaia 15:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sure--Nick1915 - all you want 17:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Extenuating circumstances. EVula // talk // // 23:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Arne (akl)'s reasoning. ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Good rationale for needing the tools. Mønobi 02:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep --.snoopy. 09:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Greeves (talk contribs) 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep--Jusjih 23:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FiLiP ¤ 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep NoSeptember 20:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Razorflame 14:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Nishkid64 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep as per the opinion I state on the talk page. Part of the "inactivity" problem that many admins may see is that they do editing of pages such as the portal templates, interface, blacklist and whitelist, and other protected pages. Many admin functions never show up in a log at all. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Andre Engels

Andre Engels (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

  • Remove Remove - 1 deletion in the past year does not seem like activity --Herby talk thyme 19:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I confess I understood this to be about activity as a meta sysop rather than relating to steward rights. There are other stewards without sysop access on meta. I imagine I must be wrong --Herby talk thyme 19:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Strike that - forgot the blacklist (which is rather strange...!) --Herby talk thyme 08:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep - I expect him to become more active in the coming time, as a re-appointed steward. Effeietsanders 19:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - Low activity rather than no activity and with stewards rights due to be reinstated subject to identification I expect he will be more active here as a result. Adambro 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - If he becomes active as a Steward, his sysop bit will become quite useful here such as adding stuff to protected pages such as the "Spam blacklist" for cross-wiki vandalism/spam etc...--Cometstyles 20:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep he might become more active as a steward, and may find use for tools (e.g. spam pages). If we can trust him as a steward, we can trust him as an admin. Majorly (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I appreciate his blacklist work earlier in 2007. That requires an admin bit. --A. B. (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep --Alastor Moody (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep --.snoopy. 09:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FiLiP ¤ 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Prevert 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Razorflame 14:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Nishkid64 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


Angela (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

  • Remove Remove Does not appear to be active w/ the sysop tools. Mønobi 02:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Still edits here, and may find the admin bit useful on occasion. Majorly (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep - A long time member who uses her sysop bit only when needed..quite useful..--Cometstyles 03:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Active enough in the light of Meta sysop activity scale (no edit in the recent 6 months, 50> edits a year), even if we are not going to advocate the benefits for us all to have her keep it. --Aphaia 08:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep --.snoopy. 09:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 10:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Az1568 23:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep :) --Johney 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FiLiP ¤ 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. WjBscribe 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Prevert 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --LadyInGrey 14:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Special case, inactivity isn't an issue. EVula // talk // // 15:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • May I ask how she is a special case? Thanks. Majorly (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • She's the chair of the Advisory Board. I'm willing to ignore some of the sysop activity requirements for WMF members. EVula // talk // // 15:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I disagree WMF members should be exceptions (otherwise we might as well make them all sysop right now and be done with), but in any case, she is still active. Majorly (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, the key (for me) is that they do have at least some participation in the community, but it's also tied to remaining attached to WMF (ie: if Person X is an admin because they are a WMF officer, then they resign, their adminship should also be removed, assuming it didn't predate their WMF appointment). Besides, it's more that the requirements should (in my mind) be bent a bit, not outright broken; Angela's busy enough in my mind. We mostly agree, I think. :) EVula // talk // // 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Still using tools.[1] --A. B. (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahonc (talk) [2]
  • Keep Keep -Razorflame 14:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Nishkid64 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - no reason to remove her tools. Acalamari 00:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Cowardly Lion 20:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Anthere (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)


Aphaia (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

  • Keep Keep One of the most active admins on Meta. I see no reason not to keep. --Meno25 21:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC) --Note: Don't need to vote keep unless anyone votes remove. Adambro 23:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC) --I know that. Thank you. --Meno25 04:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per the reasons described by Meno25.   jj137 22:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC) --Note: Don't need to vote keep unless anyone votes remove. Adambro 23:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC) --Yes, I know.   jj137 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Alastor Moody (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep --.snoopy. 09:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

*keep of course..No need to think twice.. :) ..--Cometstyles 05:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Strong Keep - changing stance to Strong keep since the JAWP community has just proven that nothing is wrong with Aphaia but their own community is the one that is failing and Aphaia is just being made into a scapegoat ..shame :| ...--Cometstyles 14:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitely confirm; one of the most active users on Meta Gaillimh 13:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove She does not even try to make an effort to lift her ban in Japanese Wikipedia. I do not think such a person is appropriate for adminship in any projects. Thus I hereby propose to remove her adminship. Yassie 11:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This is a confirmation for Meta. She is not banned on Meta, so other places are irrelevant. Majorly (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes it is about meta only, but Aphaia herself utilized her meta adminship as a "title", and acted as if she were "the boss" in Japanese Wikipedia, whereas there is no "bosses" in any Wikimedia projects by the policies. Therefore I voted for removal of her adminship. If you think Aphaia is good for you due to her contributions in meta it's fine, but please know the truth, as I'm just telling the truth. Also, please do not forget "Wikimedia projects" do include Japanese Wikipedia too. Yassie 14:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Yassie, There must be some misunderstanding. Sysop is a right, a responsibility and a job to be done. But it is not a title. Hillgentleman 03:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes, and being an admin on Meta confers no super-status elsewhere. This is a special little wiki used to facilitate, not manage, inter-project coordination. Meta admins only keep the technical side of this wiki going. An admin on just about any other project has a lot more "power". Being an admin here is like working as a low-level supervisor in building maintenance or security at the UN headquarters; the UN itself has virtually no power and the people that run the building don't have much power either. --A. B. (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
            • >Sysop is a right, a responsibility and a job to be done. But it is not a title. (by Hillgentleman)
              >Yes, and being an admin on Meta confers no super-status elsewhere. (by A.B.)
              This is exactly what I meant. Adminship is not a title, nor super-status, but Aphaia herself used her meta adminship in Japanese Wikipedia as if it were the "title" to force us "obey" her. Defenitely this was NOT the correct usage of adminship. Yassie 05:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 12:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Excellent, hardworking admin. Majorly (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep very helpful, great and, as Majorly said hardworking. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 13:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep helpful and great wikimedian--Nick1915 - all you want 16:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep of course --Herby talk thyme 16:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Whatever the concerns at ja:wp might be, her work here on Meta has been exemplary. Keep Keep ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep During my interaction with Aphaia on meta and Wikiquote, I've known her to be knowledgeable and helpful. After seriously contemplating the concerns raised about her past performance on Japanes Wikipedia, I continue to trust her to carry out admin duties on meta. FloNight 17:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep definitely. She is an exemplary Wikimedian and a good Meta admin. - Tangotango 18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep To err is human; so I am, so Aphaia is, and so Yassie is. Even if Aphaia might have given up, I wish her/him someday correcting her/his own errors in JA.WP and coming back. I know that Aphaia sometimes relaxes toooooo much in her/his mother-language communities. Anyway, it is irrelevant here in Meta. S/he is nice and hardworking here, both as an editor and as a sysop. --Kanjy 16:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes it is the nature of human beings to make mistakes, but what is really important is how the person acts after doing so. Considering what she claimed in her steward election, it is obvious that Aphaia did not even try to correct the "mistakes" (here assuming best faith to call them "mistakes") she had made, which was a serious problem. At least I do not think it is appropriate to keep such a person to be an admin, in any projects. That is a problem in general, not a matter of single project. Yassie 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Please continue this discussion on Your talkpages, thanks for Your understanding, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- part of the backbone of Meta. --A. B. (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Upgrade to strong keep:
I have reviewed closely what I could (I don't know Japanese) about Aphaia's problems with the Japanese Wikipedia community. I found the following particularly illuminating:
In particular see:
  • All the Japanese oppose comments (skim for their general tenor)
  • Hillgentleman's insightful response to oppose #4
My own experience of Aphaia on Meta: she was a bit direct and peremptory on our first exchange. I made the decision to work past it however and we got along fine. I think there was a slight language issue plus I can be a little oversensitive and techy in how I read other comments. So I can see that she could occasionally be misinterpreted or rub someone the wrong way here on Meta.
But this was just a little thing and I'm sure I've rubbed others the wrong way myself around here. More to the point, I see Aphaia working very hard across a range of issues. She has as good a sense of how Meta's culture works as any -- maybe better. Occasionally, I get glimpses of how she might come across as slightly arrogant to some, but I see her work hard in consensus-building discussions and I haven't seen her "buck" the community. Based on her Meta work, I'd say that on en.wikipedia she would rate at least in the top third of admins for humility, respect for consensus, disinterest in politics and diplomacy. (It's a rough neighbourhood over there).
At the same time, as I read all the Japanese oppose remarks, I understand that there's nothing wrong with ja.wikipedia that the rest of us need to fix. They have a different organizational culture there and it appears that a lot of solid ja.wikipedians truly got fed up with her.
I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that she's a major asset here and a liability there. I respect their decision. Perhaps it would help both projects for en.wikipedia and ja.wikipedia to exchange some admins for a while. In the meantime, I strongly support her continued adminship here on Meta, her real home. --A. B. (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, despite my being a type of arrogant English speaker. ;) —{admin} Pathoschild 00:41:28, 08 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - she does good work. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - I believe she has been a good sysop in meta. --Miya 07:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - she must not be a sysop even in meta. --A. J. Kuonji 12:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    And why? Please provide arguments. --Thogo (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    As importantly you are not a member of this "community" with so few edits so I request that your vote be discounted, thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    Everyone is a member of the community, Herby, although I agree that with few edits here this person may not be as "qualified" to make a decision. I do agree with Thogo though, that the comment is very unhelpful. Majorly (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely Keep Keep. A reliable person. Her work on translations is very important. --Massimiliano 21:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - Please read Stewards/elections 2007/statements/Aphaia and more. The reasons I wrote is the reason of this vote. --Nekosuki600 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - Complaints about situation in are irrelevant. Cary Bass demandez 19:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Are they really? I've always regarded a user having behaved in such a way that warrants a ban as rather serious. It seems to me that either (a) there is something very seriously wrong with the Japanese Wiki or (b) that Aphaia has indeed behaved in a manner that a ban was an appropriate sanction. Is this matter ever going to resolved? WjBscribe 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Will, this vote is about activity mostly - if there are serious issues with her behaviour on Meta-Wiki of course they should be addressed. But this isn't an RFA again, and other projects don't come into play here. Majorly (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Thogo (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC) No reason why not.
  • Keep Keep --FiLiP ¤ 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove RemoveSHE LIKES MEDIA MANIPULATION. needless to say about another her problem.GcG 09:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Please state where she has lied on Meta-wiki. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Please provide validated reasons (with proof) as to your arguments on any candidates that you are opposing..--Cometstyles 12:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
PS.My main working field is WPJA,and I'm NOT at good my discryption may be ugly,sorry. GcG 14:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
And now, where is the proof that this was not the truth? --Thogo (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to interupt, but this discussion ends here, personal attacks are not accepted, @GcG, what You said is Your own view and the wording is inacceptable, You can keep the vote, but You are requested to remove the insult, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"personal attacks"? It is as it were a misunderstand.if you wanna gain infomation about her wrong doings,you should learn Japanese as she behave gentry in meta,buttyrantry in wpja.My opinion is nearly same from user:Yassie's comment(ex;upside topic).so find his coment give you efficient infomation about her ability of administration.GcG 04:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
GcG simply stated the fact so that it is not an insult at all. Yassie 05:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
(four letter word)is no longer available due to a personal attack claim by User:Spacebirdy.GcG 10:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(Additional comment)In Voters' requrements Aphaia suggested that "And, I think, "100 valid contributions" should be the maximum, since it is the same requirements for admin candidates. Suggestions? --Aphaia 13:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)".I think she try to used political technic to delete 'WPJA's noisy user'S comment',and it is a symbolic example her community's privete use.(JA)Aphaiaは[3]において 「次の選挙ではmetaでの100回以上の編集を条件にしよう」といった提案を行っているが、これはこれまでWAJAにおいて数々の問題行為を行ったために、主にWAJAの編集者に顰蹙を買い、多数の反対票を入れられたことを問題視しての保身によるものだと私は考えている。これは明らかなコミュニティの軽視、私物化であるために私は断じて許しがたいことであると考えている。このような人間はプロジェクトに対して有害極まりなく、存続させること自体が危険である。追放されることは当然であろう。この者はノブレスオブリージュという言葉を知った方がいい。それでも自ら身を引かないというのであれば、強制的に退場して頂くべく介錯にかからせて頂く。率直に言って私は激怒している。GcG 11:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Keep  – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral for now. I personally find Aphaia abrassive and a number of users have expressed to me that they avoid participating here largely because of perceived hostility from her. However, she seems to be effective as an admin here. What I am unsure about is the relevance of the ban. It seems to me difficult not to conclude that we are dealing with either a rogue user or a rogue project (the latter idea being frankly the more concerning). My general approach would be to assume that bans are issued for good reason and that a person banned on one project should not hold positions of responsibility elsewhere. But in this case, a lot of users whose judgments I have confidence in support Aphaia in spike of her ban. Indeed very negative comments have been made about the Japanese Wikipedia in the past. This position seems to be untenable - is something going to be done about the Japanese Wikipedia if it has gotten things so terribly wrong in this case? WjBscribe 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Your points about Aphaia's actions on Meta are of course appreciated, I'm sure Aphaia will perhaps take time to read them. However, as I said above, the jawiki ban is not relevant in what is mean to be an activity confirmation vote. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure its correct to say that only activity related concerns should be raised. The relevant policy appears to be Meta:Administrators#Policy for de-adminship - which expressly states "Sysop-hood is not a lifetime status... Lose it if people feel they cannot trust you... Sysop status on Meta will be granted for one year. After that time, people will be able to vote to oppose a sysop." Some people are saying that they aren't sure they can trust someone who is banned on a Wikimedia project. I can see the logic to that and it bothers me that it isn't being seen as a valid reason to question her continuing as a sysop here. She may be outstanding and might have gone mad - but if that's the case shouldn't someone have tried to do something about that? WjBscribe 17:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a pattern... it's only the jawiki people that don't (apart from yourself). In general, the meta community trusts her. That's really all that matters. If people are inactive they lose adminship. But Aphaia is very active, so she shouldn't lose it. And I repeat, she is highly trusted here. Majorly (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I find this assertion that one could be untrustworthy on project A but nonethless trustworthy on project B very strange. If I behaved in such a manner on say the French Wikipedia as to be banned, I would quite understand people being unhappy with my remaining a sysop on the English Wikipedia and on Commons. If I phrase my thoughts as a general principle that "people banned on one Wikimedia project should not be admins on any other projects" would that really be a ridiculous idea? I am willing to persuaded - hence why my opinion is so far marked as "neutral". WjBscribe 17:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I find it a ridiculous idea... do you even know why she was banned? Anyhow, different projects are different projects. It seems to me, that it is unfair that one should lose all rights everywhere just because they were banned in one place. She's an admin on Foundation Wiki, a bcrat on enwikiquote, admin on jawikiquote (I think) and maybe some other places. She's fine on every project except that one... and because of that, you think she ought to be removed here? This reminds me very much of enwp RFA, and I don't like it one bit. Majorly (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware this use has ever come up on I would agree with your assessment were this some random Pokemon Wiki being discussed, but I find the idea that one should treat the entire processes of the Japanese language Wikipedia with suspicion rather strange. It seems especially odd on meta of all projects (given that its remit is cross-wiki coordination) to dismiss a ban on one of the projects it coordinates so apparently casually. I get that Majorly disagrees with me, I suspect many other do to, but would appreciate input from more people on the matter so I can judge just how "fringe" my opinion may be. WjBscribe 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Basically, are you saying you want a highly valued, hardworking admin of 3 years to be removed because she was banned somewhere else? Good grief. Majorly (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
If people have opposed her for something more General such as Stewards elections or Board Elections, then it would have been understandable since those two positions will mean being "supported by the community for the community" but this confirmation is for her activity on Meta-wiki and Meta wiki only and everything else doesn't really matter and since uptil now she hasn't shown any signs of what she was accused of on jawiki which may or may not be true and right now she is one of Meta-communities most valuable and most trustworthy editor and we would love her to stay and continue her job as one of the most hard-working admin....--Cometstyles 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
WjBscribe, you said "but if that's the case shouldn't someone have tried to do something about that?" I read someone proposed the jawiki community to unban me and they responded him or her with his own banning. Some other friends, who I have known before joining this project (and active on jawiki) gave me an advice to keep apart from them and do my own work, separately (I doubt even if they know each other) with an apology that they was scared with their behaviors. I feel sad they are in stymie for their sake, but I don't blame them. Also I would add, Japanese who gave their opposite opinions are not entrusted users even on their projects. No admin except Kanji who is an admin on Japanese Wikipedia. --Aphaia 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Aphaia. One way or another, it bothers me to think that the situation on is not being dealt with. It seems to me that either your ban there is fair or it is not. If it is fair, then I'm uncomfortable with you being an admin elsewhere. Its perhaps not a good analogy but it seems to me a bit like allowing someone to be a policeman even though they've robbed a bank in another country, because they are a good policeman in their home country. Majorly sees it differently and you have a tremendous amount of support from users I think very highly of. If your ban on jawiki is not fair, that seems even worse from my point of view. That would mean that we have a project that is banning people without good cause - even someone demonstrated to handle responsibility well on other projects. What could be done about this? Should we have a cross-wiki board able to review and overrule bans on each project? It surprises me that if all the people who support you believe you have been treated unfairly, they are not doing more to demand review of the Japanese Wikipedia process that lead to your being unwelcome to even edit there. WjBscribe 19:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm interjecting to comment on the "either your ban there is fair or it is not" part. We have a tradition of noninterference in the affairs of other wikis, within reason. (crosswiki vandals will sometimes get preemptive bans if they're nasty enough)... consider the case of User:Poetlister This user is banned outright on en:wp on grounds of a somewhat controversial association with Runcorn. And yet, this user is also a highly valued and admired admin on en:q... Does that mean that en:q should be forced to ban her? The very suggestion that someone might suggest that was met with considerable dismay at en:q. (see around thereabouts in their VP history, or maybe a bit later) Does that mean that en:wp should be forced to unban her? That too isn't going to happen. The case has to be made at en:wp (and I think it will be at some point soon). We have here in Aphaia someone who is highly effective here on meta, regardless of whether the ja:wp community is giving her a bum rap, or is completely justified. I think the thing to evaluate is, can Aphaia be effective here, despite being banned somewhere else. And I think the evidence is clear, she is one of our leading admins here, highly respected, and entrusted with a number of important tasks (that she has 'crat status at the foundation wiki I think shows the foundation has a lot of trust in her as well), which she executes with excellence. That is a strong argument for retaining her services, whatever ja:wp thinks. ++Lar: t/c 02:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
WJBscribe, I think you know that I deeply value your judgment. Though, I don't fully agree with you. The problem with ja.wikipedia is that almost no user from this project is involved in meta or foundation matters. Aphaia is (was) our only contact with the japanese community. I personally think her ban is unfair, but as I don't speak Japanese, I can't do anything to try to fix things. So, if the ban is unfair, nobody can really do anything about the ban, since nobody speaks Japanese.
About the separation between projects, I think it should be respected. For instance, Yann was desysoped from fr.wikipedia following an ArbCom ruling against him, because he abused his sysop tools for POV-pushing. Although some fr.wp users raised this issue during the stewards confirmation process, asking for his non-reconfirmation, the majority acknowledged that sysopship on a project and stewarship were two different matters, and Yann had never acted badly as a steward. Hence his reconfirmation. The reasons why Aphaia was banned from ja.wp are very obscure, and the fact that none of us speak japanese doesn't help. But from what we know of Aphaia, she has always been doing a great job, for instance managing multilingual translations. So it's logical that all users who have met her and worked with her on meta or in Foundation affairs trust her and support her. guillom 19:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Aphaia has told a lie again here. I admit Kanjy is an entrusted admin of Japanese Wikipedia (and I trust him/her a lot too), but Also I would add, Japanese who gave their opposite opinions are not entrusted users even on their projects is a total lie and an insult. Though I do not state anything about reputation about me by myself, GcG is a fine article author and Nekosuki600 is one of the most entrusted users in Japanese Wikipedia. This is why I cannot trust Aphaia at all. Who can trust a person that tells a lie in the election? Yassie 21:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Prevert 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Kzhr 09:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. I've read a little bit about the situation on Japanese Wikipedia, but don't really know the full background. However, what I've seen of her is good and she seems to be trusted by the people at meta. And I take the point, made above, that most people here don't speak Japanese, so I'm happy to judge her just by what I see here. Cowardly Lion 19:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Giovanni (Ebbene?) 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep NoSeptember 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove--Anonymous000 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)sorry, but I write in Japanese to explain what I think exactly. Translation is welcome for me. 理由(の一部)は次の通りです。(1) Aphaia氏は、メタにおいて、2005年にUser:Danzig氏をブロックしたことについて、JAWPでの対話拒否(等)を理由とするAphaia氏に対するブロック依頼の中で、問題が指摘されています([4])。その後も、User:FXST氏、User:Penpen氏など、JAWPで無期限ブロックされたユーザーをメタにおいて、自身の裁量のみで、「trolling」という理由で、ブロックしています。私自身は、これらのメタでのブロックが正当なブロックとは思いにくいのですが、仮に正当だとすれば、Aphaia氏もまた、先般のスチュワード選挙(Stewards/elections_2007/statements/Aphaia)に出馬したこと自体が、JAWPやメタでの「trolling」を行っているように思います。そのようなユーザーが、管理者として適任であるとは思えません。(2)Aphaia氏は、自分に対して批判的な他のユーザーを排除しようとする持続的な傾向を有しています。そして、私自身、全くの初心者の頃(2006年後半)に、CUの方針整備等のために、メタでの議論を勧誘されたことがありますが、メタには、日本語を解するユーザーが極めて少数でした。今回、User:WJBscribe氏のコメントを読んで、Aphaia氏がメタで管理者権限を持って活動していること自体が、メタで日本語話者が活動することを忌避する一因ではないかと考えました。(3)そもそも、Aphaia氏は、JAWPにおいて、複数の管理者に対して法的脅迫を行い、JAWPのコミュニティの多数意見を無視してまで、その管理者らに、「とあるユーザー」をブロックさせたことをうかがわせる経歴を有しています([5]参照)。管理者に対して法的に脅迫して、他のユーザーをブロックさせるようなユーザーは、ウィキメディア財団内のいかなるプロジェクトからも「追放」されてしかるべきだと、私は考えています。このようなユーザーが、管理者として適任であるとは、到底思えません。少なくとも以上三点より、Aphaia氏のメタでの管理者権限が「除去」されることを、私は望みます。--Anonymous000 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)・微修正--00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • [Translation of Anonymous000's comment] The reasons (or part thereof) for my vote to remove her is as follows: (1) In 2005, Aphaia has blocked User:Danzig, which was deemed problematic by some and was mentioned and discussed in a JAWP block request.[6] After that, she has blocked users in Meta who are indefinitely blocked from JAWP (User:FXST and User:Penpen) by her personal judgement, citing "trolling". I personally feel that these blocks were unjustified; if it was legitimate, wouldn't the same logic imply that her running for Steward Stewards/elections_2007/statements/Aphaia would be an action similar to what she calls "trolling" in JAWP and Meta? (2) Aphaia has shown persistent tendency to exclude users who makes critical remarks to her. When I was a complete novice back in late 2006, I was invited to join the discussion at Meta to organize guidelines for CU, but back then, there were almost no one in Meta who can speak Japanese. Today, Reading User:WJBscribe's comment, I felt that the fact that Aphaia is an active sysop in Meta must be one of the reasons the Japanese people do not feel like coming to the Meta-Wiki. (3) After all, Aphaia is a user with a history of legal threats to multiple JAWP sysops; and a statement which hints that she made those sysops block "a certain user", contrary to the majority opinion of the community. (See [7].) I believe that a user who makes legal threats against sysops to make them block a user should be "banned" from any project of the Foundation. I do not feel that a user like that would be suitable for a Meta sysop. Those are the three of the reasons I would like her status removed. --Anonymous000 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC); slightly modified --00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC) [Translated by 朝彦 (Asahiko) 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)]
  • Remove Remove as her hostility appears to be not limited just to me. it's a shame the ban wasn't on an English language wiki because if it was I suspect a clearer idea of what went on might change things dramatically. Adambro 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral Though you might wish to contribute more to WM communities, I seem your behavior as "a Wikimedian of influence" be somewhat that of toady (事大; 狐藉虎威). You must, at first, reform relationship between you and other members on your base community. Although, adminship on meta may not be related to ja communities so much... --Hatukanezumi 02:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I suppose, a post here indicates that you depend on your position in WM too much. You might want to leave your excessive responsibilities and to spare them for other members. --Hatukanezumi 03:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Conversely, had you been trying to spare your burden for other members? You occasionally complained that "few ja people involve into WM-wide activity", even, "most ja people won't accept WM way" (this may include "Just I know the right way"). Besides, as above, you repeatedly insist that "my (true) friends shall understand what I talk". You may be a hard-working sysop worthy to respect, but may not have better leadership. --Hatukanezumi 05:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hatukanezumi, this is not like a steward position. Meta admins have no super wikimedia-wide powers -- they're technicians on a small but important wiki used for interwiki cooperation. As I mentioned above, they're like building maintenance supervisors in the UN Headquarters building. Nor do meta admins have guru-level knowledge of Wikimedia ways; that comes from long experience on actual projects such as jp.wikipedia or fr.wiktionary. If Aphaia, her friends or her opponents suggest otherwise, just laugh at them. --A. B. (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I entirely agree: sysop is just a technical position. However, eager volunteers sometimes misapprehend that they ought to lead the project by their own. I guess s/he is so sympathized with WM project that s/he occasionally neglected communicating with or requesting for help to other community members (it is not definitely true that they weren't her/his friends). So, despite s/he is competent Wikimedian, I hesitate to vote for Keep. --Hatukanezumi 17:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
NB: Why I hadn't clearly wrote on her sex is, it is simply felt natural by me. Japanese language doesn't have a concept of grammatical genders. --Hatukanezumi 15:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
彼女はIRCなどでmetaでの権限をちらつかせて何かを強要していました。私はそれを数回目撃しています。彼女の行動が原因で、ja:Wikipedia:投稿ブロック依頼/Deadaphaia 解除の様なトラブルが起こっています。私もこの事態に巻き込まれました。私は彼女を権限を持つには不適当な方だと認識しております。自分の立場の確保のために、彼女が投票資格の変更を提案するとは、あまりにひどすぎます。--Chatama 02:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --Sylphie 08:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --Complex01 08:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --Hirokun 10:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove 10:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove To a person believing her. I want you to study Japanese language by all means, and want you to examine a case in JAWP.--Kickaha 11:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Keep — despite the meatpuppets above. — Kalan ? 12:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • None of us are meatpuppets. Yassie 12:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • My Dear, This is a classic example of what meat-puppeting is :) ...--Cometstyles 12:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        • No way. This is just a neutral notice. Yassie 12:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • So, if you (one user) speak us for all users above, you are not meatpuppets but sockpuppets, right? :) — Kalan ? 13:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I am speaking for jawp simply because I am one of few English-speaking users from Japanese Wikipedia. I know those accounts. Those users are all active in Japanese Wikipedia, including several sysops. Nobody from Japanese Wikipedia are meatpuppets or sockpuppets. Please stop this kind of insult. Yassie 13:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral - I know that s/he is doing her/his best for Wikimedia projects. But, I can't understand the reason why s/he didn't make an effort to accept a demand of JAWP community. (Please see it also.) Sorry, my English isn't good maybe. Thank you. --ChibaRagi @JAWP user 14:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok Point of interest, some people that have come to oppose Aphaia's re-confirmation don't even know what her sex is which goes to show that they don't really Know her and it seems more than likely now that Canvassing is happening, I'm not sure if its through mail, mailing list or other forms of communication, but this is totally wrong, people who don't know her sex don't really have any idea what they are talking about, so this is really more of a case of meat-puppeting and Votestacking and if this continues, then we may be forced to discount all votes by the JAWP community as per disruptive canvassing policy.--Cometstyles 18:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You have misunderstood. To tell the truth, we (almost) know his/her sex. Of course, I also know. It is thought that sex is important individual information in Japan. Therefore, we (almost) are attentive so as not to write his/her sex. Information not being written is not information not known. About the treatment of individual information in Japanese computer network, see here. --Nekosuki600 19:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
あなたは誤解しています。事実、私たち(のほとんど)はその人の性別を知っています。もちろん、私も知っている。日本では、性別は重要な個人情報であると考えられています。だから私たち(の多く)は、その人の性別を書かないように注意している。書かれていないことは、知られていないことではないのです。--Nekosuki600 19:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
(comment) I thought that Nekosuki600 conveyed Japanese character and culture intelligibly. I knew Ms.Aphaia's sex because I met her last year, but I didn't write her sex in my comment at this place. (Ja: 私は、Nekosuki600氏が日本人の性格と文化を上手く伝えてくれたと思いました。私はAphaia女史の性別を知っていました。何故なら私は彼女と昨年会っているからです。しかし、私はこの場における自分のコメントに彼女の性別を記載しませんでした。)--ChibaRagi @JAWP user 14:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Brownout(msg) 19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment while I very much want Aphaia to remain an admin here, we must respect our Japanese colleagues and not belittle their opinions or their right to express them here. I agree that going into the future, we will want to require some minimum background on meta for voters here, not in order to disenfranchise some group but to make sure participants are familiar with meta, its processes and its culture. Nevertheless, it is too late for that with this reconfirmation round. I assume the closing bureaucrat will verify that editors commenting here are established contributors on some other project; to the extent that they are low edit-count editors elsewhere, then their opinions can be discounted. Otherwise, they should be included just like mine. Also, if there is a neutral notice of this reconfirmation on jp.wikipedia, then that is not canvassing. --A. B. (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    Agree entirely, well put. Adambro 20:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • weak Keep Keep. My comments:
    • As I understand, the loudest arguments against her are ..acts as queen in, likes media manipul.., trolling... blah blah.. As someone who has worked in East Asia for quite sometime, I assess that probably her actions that are "normal" in the western hemisphere could have been perceived as "highly irritant" in jawiki due to cultural / generation differences. I would regard this as "quite" normal. She has the support of active community in meta, where the culture is different and that is what matters for being a meta admin. So in making my decision, I discount all "such" arguments above.
    • As a non-Japanese who find no well-substantiated (with translations) opposing argument in English, I am forced to perceive many of the comments above as "personal attack" arising from a loss of trust in - the "kind of trust" highly regarded in Asian culture. I agree to discounting opposing votes made without sufficient explanation, not because they are from, but because there is a high likelihood that they are here due to Votestacking / meat-puppetry. If there is a good argument, please articulate it well (eigo kudasaaai). I have met with a number of excellent English speakers in Japan and I wouldn't believe that the opposers can't find at least someone who can speak clearly for them about the issue in Japanese wiki and how Aphaia's role in that issue relates to her RFA at meta.
    • My support is weak due to the argument by User:Anonymous000. I wonder whether Aphaia violated this rule through some CU related actions or some violation of personal trust, had this rule been insisted upon more stringently by Japanese wiki. Wikimedia Foundation insists on protecting personal information during a CU check and a lack of trust in this regard could be highly relevant to RFA on meta as well. The babelfish translation of Anonymous000's comments have been inconclusive in this regard. --Jacob 20:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your interest in my comment. And I'm awfully sorry for writing only in Japanese because it's very hard to write in English for me. 私のコメントに関心をお持ちいただきありがとうございます。英文を書くのが苦手なので、日本語でのみ書いていることを、深くお詫びいたします。--Anonymous000 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)--fix a little bit Anonymous000 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral to be fair. I understand the logic 'Meta and WPJA are different indepndent projects'//'a tradition of noninterference in the affairs of other wikis, within reason.' If we do respect this idea and apply on Aphaia, supporting her could be a reasonable thought. On the other hand, Aphaia herself obviously do NOT respect this idea. Aphaia baned User:FXST and User:Penpen here just because they are banned from WPJA as User:Anonymous000 said. Here is the log, just saying an expiry time of infinite ‎ (trolling jawiki) for the blocking reason[8]/[9].It is true that Aphaia had shown off her authority at meta on IRC of WPJA to achieve whatever she wanted. After she has banned from WPJA, she tried to preserve or enpower her infulence on WPJA by obtaining Steward position(which reasonably encountered many strong opposes from WPJA members and the deal was closed by herself). These her behavior makes WPJA users feel VERY unsecured, and it's quite understandable many users of WPJA here vote to remove her from Meta sysop.However, we can see it would be fine as long as Aphaia is supported for her contribution here, but IMO with a condition. I wish Aphaia give her word here not to interfere WPJA taking advantage of her position at Meta anymore, hopefully, with appology. If she still insist interference to WPJA is one of her Meta sysop job, she is absolutely not appropriate. --Motozawa 22:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have prepared a summary of ja.wikipedia editors commenting here with edit counts and admin status. Over half have more than 5,000 edits; 8 are admins. (permanent link) --A. B. (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Meta edit counts are much lower:
  • over 50: 2
  • 41 to 50: 0
  • 31 to 40: 2
  • 21 to 30: 2
  • 11 to 20: 4
  • under 10: 14
--A. B. (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you A. B., that was a very thoughtful and helpful thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you A.B. for making the list. However, why don't you summarize of ja.wikipedia editors who want to keep Aphaia's sysop status (User:Tangotango, User:Kanjy, User:Miya, and User:Kzhr)? A.Bさん、集計ありがとうございます。しかし、どうして、Aphaia氏の管理者権限の「keep」を望んでいるJAWPの利用者(Tangotango, Kanjy, Miya, Kzhrの各氏)の集計をしていないのですか?--Anonymous000 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not know they were associated with ja.wikipedia. --12:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've added the 4 support voters above plus new neutrals and opposes to my user subpage; here is the new permanent link. This is very laborious work (75 minutes), so I will not be doing anymore updates. Others are welcome to update that list or make corrections (I'm sure there's a mistake or two in all that data). Once all this is resolved, I'll blank the page and use it for something else. --A. B. (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! It's very interested.--Anonymous000 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - certainly! - Alison 04:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - of course, she's doing great work with translations etc, and needs her tools. She doesn't abuse them, so no problem. I don't see why people from jawiki bother to come here and vote against her, I don't see what they have to win with this... Effeietsanders 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Aphaia is competent and he is not abusing his tools. And please note that sysop is just a right and a job to be done, and not a rank: I can run around in wikiversity or even in the street telling people that I am a sysop on Meta-wiki; And if it makes someone respect me more, it would have been from her own free will; if anybody think that would make me stand taller, it would have been from her own free will. Please indicate, if you are opposing Aphaia's confirmation, in what way her adminship would affect you actually and in practice, especially if you spend most of your wiki-time outside Meta. Hillgentleman 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove--Akane700 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove--Quatro 16:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Well... I've finally found how canvassing went on [10]. Nekosuki600 (as 猫が好き♪ ◆1GNekodnQQ on that board) says that "It seems that three was voted for the keep. Why don't you vote for the remove?"(rough translation) Obviously it is not neutral message, so s/he wanted to product lots of meat-puppet. It happened at 2008/01/31(木) 00:53:04(JST). So if someone voted after that for oppose, it would be discounted and considered as a result of canvassing.
I am, however, not sure that the other users from jawp were also asked to vote for oppose. Because aphaia irritated them for saying that "Also I would add, Japanese who gave their opposite opinions are not entrusted users even on their projects. No admin except Kanji who is an admin on Japanese Wikipedia."[11] It would not be exactly, it might be caused by her/his misunderstanding, but they understand it as a lie or self-justification. I would like to pick up the comment to mention how they got anger: as Hatukanezumi says "そうやって、自分の味方がいそうな場所では自分の主張が正しいとみせかけようとするから、あなたの言動は不実だと言われるんです...Removeに投票した利用者のほとんどすべてが、日本語コミュニティでいくばくかの貢献をしている者であることを、いまここで説明しなさい。"(rough translation: So you behave as if you were right at meta, where you have many supporters. Thus it is told at jawp that you are disloyal. Please explain that the almost of all user, who voted oppose, is somewhat contributed for their community right now.)[12] Moreover, s/he said: "They are too casual to ban editors both registered and anons in my opinion. It frequently happens a sysop ban a ranged IP indefinitely. Also it happens a sysop banned a user with a decent amount of edit history not only indefinitely but on sight. Banning and blocking is much lighter there, sadly. "[13] This might be misleading; the frequency of blocking comes from not the aptitude of admins, but the vandalism. The vandalisms, caused by lots of IP users or sockpuppets, are very frequent and very serious at jawp, so it would be a trump card to save jawp. Additionally, there are no such a users, who blocked indefinitely at sight unless the decent amount of edit history.(Aphaia was blocked for at least 3 months actually, so it is not correct to say that it was "indefinitely.")
It would also have irritated admins, you see that after that comment (15:17, 25 January 2008), some admins voted for oppose, and one changed her/his poll. So it would be possible to say that so many opposing are caused by her/his statements at meta, not those at jawp or somewhere. However as for canvassing, it is very possible to mention that the only neutral notation could be worked as canvassing. It is predictable what users of jawp does if they felt that they were insulted here... I think that this confirm should have been held by those who are active at meta, even though jawp users would have their reasons, as everyone has...
aphaia would be victim of the sort of event which is according to the blocking at jawp. Because there were too much misunderstandings between Aphaia and jawp community... I hope that s/he and they would restore the connection after this confirmation.Michael0831 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am deeply disappointed and frustrated that a very experienced editor on ja.wikipedia would be canvassing for more opposing votes here. I have argued for counting the opinions of those ja.wikipedia editors and admins who have little experience here and I have stood up for them against others' concerns about possible bad faith. Now this happens, leaving me feeling like I was a fool to be so trusting.
I am at a loss as to what should happen next. I believe Aphaia's reconfirmation process has been irrevocably compromised and it probably started well before this 1/31/08 message board post. --A. B. (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize. The message was not neutral certainly.
Please forgive me explaining a few.
Now Aphaia proposes to limit qualifications for voting in Meta. This insistence is an extremely political one to aim to seal off the vote from a Japanese Wikipedia in fact. Is it fair to propose the method of limiting the opposing people's voting right? I have a strong sense of crisis, I cannot conceal the anxiety. And, I expressed concern and my opinion.
I want you to think. There is a person who hopes for an advantageous conclusion for oneself up to the choice of the means of modifying the electoral system. I think that this is a critical situation for Meta. What do you think? --Nekosuki600 14:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Aphaia氏は現在、Metaにおける投票資格を制限することを提案しています。これは事実上、日本語版からの投票を封じることを目的とした、極めて政治的な主張です。反対者の投票権を制限するという方法を提案することは、フェアなことでしょうか? わたしは強い危機感を持っているし、それを隠すことはできません。そして、私は懸念と意見を表明した。
考えてみてほしい。選挙制度を改変するという手段を選んでまで、自らに有利な結論を望む者がいるのです。これは、Metaにとって危機的な状況だと、私は思います。あなたは、どう思いますか? --Nekosuki600 14:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Nekosuki600's comment in 2ch is relativery unfair. but,a person drawing plot in closed space should really be claimed,i think.GcG 15:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
In response to Nekosuki600's comment "What do you think?":
Nekosuki600, your actions have led me to lose faith in the integrity of Aphaia's reconfirmation vote.
--A. B. (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand your feeling, A.B.. However, Aphaia as a "Meta's Sysop", "Foundation Volunteer", and so on, forced JAWP's sysops and CU etc. to abuse their status (see User:Chatama's comment and related pages et. al). So Aphaia's such behaviors had led most of us (JAWP's users, I believe) to lose faith in the integrity of herself. A.B.さんの気持ちは分かります。しかし、Aphaia氏は、「メタの管理者」、「財団ボランティア」、等として、JAWPの管理者やCU係等に対して、その権限の濫用等を強いてきました(ちゃたま氏のコメント・その関連ページ等を参照)。このようなAphaia氏の行動が、我々JAWPの利用者の殆ど(と私は信じます)の、Apahia氏自身に対する「廉潔性に対する信頼」を失わせてきたのです。--Anonymous000 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove--Hisagi 02:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral Sigh. Seriously, you can't go as far as a meter in Japan without hitting 2ch somewhere eh? Concerning Aphaia's confirmation, while I don't have any problems with her activities in Meta (e.g. regarding translations where I've occasionally worked alongside her), I do not deem her trustworthy anymore. (Especially when she brings up her position as a Meta sysop in a discussion elsewhere.) I'm voting neutral, but I believe I'm not the only one who thinks that having such a controversial person as a sysop (and stirring up a whole lot of heated arguments) would not benefit the projects and its communities in the long run. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 03:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for your translation for me! And I deeply agree with your opinion that " having such a controversial person as a sysop (and stirring up a whole lot of heated arguments) would not benefit the projects and its communities in the long run ". 翻訳頂き、誠にありがとうございました。朝彦さんの、上記見解に、深く同意します。--Anonymous000 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Nekosuki600's word is improper. But 2ch is not official community of jawiki. It is external community. And his time remarks of 2ch is 01/3130/2008 15:53:04 (UTC). I think many jawiki user who voted confirm is not preventer. --Marine-Blue [ talk contribs admin of jawikinews ] 08:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the timestamp is 01/30/2008 15:53:04. Michael0831 13:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
corrected.--Marine-Blue [ talk contribs admin of jawikinews ] 15:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove--Threetwoone 12:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral Please, no flames about my bad English. The first thing s/he should say in JAWP, Sorry,I won't do it again.It seems like a cakewalk.I think that the gate was opened, but s/he refused it by own words.--Noche de la pena 12:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
According to the jawp sysop's comment, an apology was not needed (while little amount of violent users claimed here and there that aphaia should do it.) It is possible that s/he feared such a vandalism and felt upset, then refused it. I am not sure but it is also possible to mention that jawp still wants her/his to come back to japanese community with her/his pledge to render an account of her/his behavior. Michael0831 13:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It should be remembered that many JPN users watch this confirm. And, I advise you should show your account in other Projects. We can't trust your words without your main account. Well, about your opinion, I think you have a misunderstanding. JAWP community made a impartial ruling about it[14]. What is important is whether or not s/he is willing to come back to JAWP.--Noche de la pena 14:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it "「個人情報の扱いについて慎重を期し、今回のようなことは二度と起こさない」といった内容の誓約が行われた場合、ブロックより3ヶ月が経過していれば、ブロックを解除します。"[15] means that "if s/he pledge to render an account of her/his behavior, the sysop will unblock s/he three month later" on the whole. I don't think that the dicision is unproper. (Moreover someone who thinks that it is simply a result of plot, should examine the course, at least it is not simple.) But s/he thought that the jawp community wanted to her/him to apologize, on the other hand, only few users thought that an apology was the requirment and they wanted her/him to apologize. So what was the misunderstanding? Michael0831 22:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Brion VIBBER (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

  • Keep Keep - active. xaosflux Talk 05:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Meta's top admin with over 3800 sysop actions and obviously till he can introduce SUL :P....--Cometstyles 14:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Any attempt at thinking of a reason Brion shouldn't be an admin results in my brain exploding. Keep. EVula // talk // // 23:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Mønobi 02:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep --.snoopy. 09:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep of course. --Johney 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FiLiP ¤ 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Prevert 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --LadyInGrey 14:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --A. B. (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Ahonc 19:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Hatukanezumi 03:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Razorflame 14:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Nishkid64 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep on the grounds that desysopping would be utterly illogical. Stifle 09:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - good admin. Acalamari 00:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Cowardly Lion 20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Duh. Swatjester 20:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


Dmcdevit (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections) Hi guys. I never really did use meta adminship for anything more than the odd job. I could continue to use it every once in a while. Personally, I think adminship shouldn't be treated like a special status to be taken away for inactivity. It's true I don't edit meta a lot, though I am still active generally on other projects. You can decide how you like based on that. Don't worry, I won't take it personally, and it's not a huge deal. :-) Dmcdevit 02:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • remove - since july only one admin action and one mediawiki namespace edit, inactivity. Effeietsanders 08:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • remove per above. Thought he was more active, so I didn't check. o.O --Thogo (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Changed to Keep Keep, yes, maybe we should change the policy slightly to avoid these things. --Thogo (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • remove - sadly. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove As above. Majorly (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • remove --.snoopy. 09:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

*sadly remove - per inactivity...--Cometstyles 11:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - How dare you make me change my mind !!! :P ...--Cometstyles 17:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment while it is obvious he has been inactive, he doesn't meet meta inactivity criteria which our current rule indicates. Would we like to update close to our current sense of inactivity? --Aphaia 00:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess everyone has a different sense in that. We could remove the numbers at all, and leave the assessment to the voters. (Shouldn't we discuss that on the talk page?) --Thogo (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
"Any sysop inactive on Meta for a full year will be de-sysoped. "Inactive" means no edits in the past 6 months and less than 50 edits in the last year. They may re-apply through the regular way." - Meta:Administrators#Policy for de-adminship
Meta log for Dmcdevit shows nine (to my eyes) logged admin actions, at least three protected-page edits (MediaWiki: space and webportal templates),
Dmcdevit's contributions log shows the last 100 edits, going back to 29 January 2007.
I'm going to have to vote Keep Keep here. His only issue is relative inactivity to other meta-admins, he's done more than double the minimum number of edits and admin actions required by our written policy. Trust is certainly not an issue. I'd urge that we either change our votes or change the policy. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, agree with kylu, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 03:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per kylu and as I said before more active than the level the current policy says, and Dmcdevit shows an interest still ... no urgent need to remove ne? --Aphaia 03:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per kylu ++Lar: t/c 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I see no need to remove the tools of a trusted active Wikimedian whose admin activity is within the established standards. FloNight 20:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --A. B. (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep might not be using admin rights often but is still active so should stay an admin. Adambro 18:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. If someone had admin rights on Wikisource but had turned his attention to Wikipedia or Wiktionary and almost never came near Wikisource anymore, I'd say remove. But I think Meta is different. It seems to exist for the sake of the other projects, not as an end in itself. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here.) So yes, if someone is highly trusted and still active on another project, and has admin rights here, let him keep them. He won't abuse them, and they may be useful. And as Kylu said, he's not completely inactive here. Cowardly Lion 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, no convincing reason to remove. Stifle 09:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - yup - Alison 21:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per kylu --Jacob 21:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


Eloquence (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

  • remove - practically no activity here (lately as in: the past 6-9 months) as sysop. I don't thikn he needs it. Effeietsanders 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep - more activity than Andre Engels by some way --Herby talk thyme 19:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - with 135 admin actions, quite active I would say...--Cometstyles 20:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • remove per effeietsanders--Nick1915 - all you want 23:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - but I hope for more activity. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep plenty active enough. Majorly (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Alastor Moody (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Erik is now Deputy Director of the Foundation[16]; I think it's useful for staff and trustees to have adminship rights available if needed.--A. B. (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I don't think that WMF folk should be held to the same activity standards as regular volunteers (myself included). EVula // talk // // 23:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per A.B.'s reasoning. ++Lar: t/c 02:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep --.snoopy. 09:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FiLiP ¤ 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Prevert 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Razorflame 14:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Nishkid64 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - agree with Majorly. Acalamari 00:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Flcelloguy (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

  • Remove Remove No edits since May, and is missing from all Wikimedia projects, sadly :( Majorly (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove as inactive. Adambro 18:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove inactive--Nick1915 - all you want 18:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove his last edit on enwp was [17]. Let's hope he finds time to come back somewhen. --Thogo (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - inactive --Herby talk thyme 19:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove inactive since May. FloNight 20:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - inactive.   jj137 22:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --Alastor Moody (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove - No admin edits for over 6 need for the tools..--Cometstyles 14:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. Mønobi 02:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • remove --.snoopy. 09:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove No active on meta --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. --Az1568 23:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive.--Jusjih 23:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Met the inactive criteria per Majorly. Hope someday back and good luck for his new life. --Aphaia 00:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Due to inactivity during 8 month.--Ahonc 17:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactivity --Razorflame 14:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive on all projects. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactivity --Jacob 19:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Inactive, displace. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove if inactive on all projects. Cowardly Lion 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


guillom (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)


Improv (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

  • Remove Remove per edit by the user here. Seems he doesn't want to be an admin, or involved in WMF projects at all anymore. Adambro 18:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove No edits since January last year, sadly has left all Wikimedia projects :( Majorly (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove inactive--Nick1915 - all you want 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Adambro. --Thogo (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - inactive --Herby talk thyme 19:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove User stated clearly that he will no longer contribute. --Meno25 21:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • remove per request..--Cometstyles 21:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --Alastor Moody (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • remove --.snoopy. 09:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove due to inactivity --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per diff. Greeves (talk contribs) 20:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. --Az1568 23:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sad enough. He is really gone. --Aphaia 23:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive user.--Ahonc 18:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactivity --Razorflame 14:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactivity. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactivity --Jacob 19:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove if inactive on all projects. Cowardly Lion 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Korg (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

  • Support Pro Fairly active, while he seems to be on holidays at this very moment. And one of most active editors on the Wikimedia website, whose maintenance is within meta inclusion scope (at least now, so). Nothing controversial I think. --Aphaia 00:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Active. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


M7 (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

  • Keep Keep Active.   jj137 22:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC) --Note: Don't need to vote keep unless anyone votes remove. Adambro 23:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC) --I know   jj137 23:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - active. And yes, I know, Adambro :) ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, awesome user. --Alastor Moody (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - He is more active than God :P ...--Cometstyles 11:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep --.snoopy. 10:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FiLiP ¤ 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Great user, definitely is active. --Razorflame 14:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Nishkid64 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


Mzlla (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

  • Remove Remove No activity for over a year, sadly :( Majorly (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Seems to have vanished. Adambro 18:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove inactive--Nick1915 - all you want 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove inactive. --Thogo (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove "inactivity killed the admin" --Cometstyles 19:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - inactive --Herby talk thyme 19:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove inactivity. --Meno25 20:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - inactive.   jj137 22:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - yes, inactive. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --Alastor Moody (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • remove :(( --.snoopy. 10:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove No longer active --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. --Az1568 23:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive.--Jusjih 00:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove, this user is inactive. --Johney 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove --Ahonc 19:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactivity --Razorflame 14:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactivity. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactivity --Jacob 19:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Has not edited here (or in any Finnish project) for over a year. –Ejs-80 19:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove if inactive on all projects. Cowardly Lion 21:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Notafish (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

  • Keep Keep per Arne (akl)'s reasoning... (As Chapter coordinator, Notafish also has organizational reasons to retain adminship, see Notafish's user page). ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep - saw her fishing around on IRC so she is still an active Chapter coordinator...the tools will benefit her heaps...--Cometstyles 03:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per my rationale that WMF-affiliated people shouldn't be subject to the same activity/inactivity requirements as volunteers. The need is real, even if constant use doesn't exist. EVula // talk // // 05:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Either she is a paid staff or not, her recent edits don't fall into the inactivity cliteria of meta sysop (no action 6 mths, 50> edits a year). And her edits include sysop action (see deletion log for example). Simply, enough active to keep. --Aphaia 08:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep --.snoopy. 10:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FiLiP ¤ 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Prevert 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Razorflame 14:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Nishkid64 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


Timichal (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

Tim Starling

Tim Starling (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

  • removecomment inactive. no edit since July, no sysop action since 2006. --Thogo (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - Tim is one of the more prominent devs. He may need access here. I am comfortable with him retaining the tools. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I'd repeat what I said about the sysop activity of Kate. It benefits the community to let him keep admin access: we have no access to dev's action so keeping a dev his sysop access may inclease the transparency of this project. --Aphaia 11:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Anonymous Dissident and Aphaia's reasoning. --A. B. (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep May not be active in edits, but is there behind the scenes, and sysop access may come in useful. Majorly (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep developer, probably useful. Mønobi 02:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Anonymous Dissident..--Cometstyles 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep --.snoopy. 10:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 10:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Anonymous Dissident & Aphaia. --Az1568 23:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --FiLiP ¤ 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Prevert 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Ahonc 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Developer --Razorflame 14:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Nishkid64 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep as desysopping would be disruptive Stifle 09:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - for the same reason I said to keep Angela's tools. Acalamari 00:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Keep - Tim helped me a lot when jawp users and I were in trouble. I'd like to say "thank you" by this vote. --Sylphie 00:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Cowardly Lion 21:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Walter (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

  • In this statement I wish to state that Walter is an active and well regarded admin who does not like to give statements. That concludes this pro forma support statement. except for the pro forma disclaimer: the statement was not needed since no one has opposed. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - Doesn't talk too much. Cary Bass demandez 19:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Prevert 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Razorflame 14:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Nishkid64 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)