Meta:Administrators/confirm/Archives/2008-10

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

Dbl2010[edit]

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

  • Remove Remove - less that 50 edits this year shows the lack of interest in meta though his steward right will remain intact till next month..--Cometstyles 23:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - Inactive by my count.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. Majorly talk 03:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per above. --Az1568 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove inactive. Anonymous101 08:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive --Fabexplosive The archive man 18:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - inactivity -- Avi 04:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Daniel (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - inactive. xaosflux Talk 04:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. Mikhailov Kusserow 04:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove not active enough for the tools. Durova 18:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Rights removed per 100% support - --Cometstyles 23:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

FrancoGG[edit]

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

  • Remove Remove - sorry but barely a dozen edits this year..sorry :( ...--Cometstyles 23:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Deleted three things in since July, which not even I have done (yet I've been active) - this indicates a lack of admin work, rather than a lack of activity, especially given this user has been active in rving vandalism lately. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no shortage of admin work for those who are willing to do it. Given the low level of admin activity and low level of activity on meta in general, Remove Remove.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep KeepRemove Remove per Cometstyles. So be it. Doesn't help anyway for the 75%. --Thogo (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Mike & Comets --Herby talk thyme 11:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per inactivity. --Kanonkas 17:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral What a shame, Franco was one of our best vandal fighters at one time. I really don't want to see him removed (I did nominate him for adminship afterall) but I don't see much reason to keep sadly. Hope he returns soon. Majorly talk 17:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Keep Keep He made some edits and deletions today. I hope everyone else reconsiders. Majorly talk 17:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with Majorly, unfortunately. :-( Cbrown1023 talk 20:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Mike and Majorly. --Az1568 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive, per Majorly. Anonymous101 08:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Made a few edits today, same as Majorly. KarlWickk 17:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
User joined Meta today. Majorly talk 17:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep ... if you're willing to get back in the harness, I'm all for it. ++Lar: t/c 21:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Lar and Majorly. WJBscribe (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Majorly --Fabexplosive The archive man 18:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Majorly. Cbrown1023 talk 01:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Jacob 04:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Per Lar and Majorly. -- Avi 04:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop. Mikhailov Kusserow 05:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Per Majorly (talk · contribs) and Lar (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Per Majorly (talk · contribs) and Lar (talk · contribs) --.snoopy. 06:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, it looks like he wants to be more active again, I would welcome that, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 18:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, I couldn't vote remove so I didn't vote; thanks god the situation changed and now I can easily vote keep (translation: "Per Majorly"!!) Huji 18:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • 71% in support of keeping rights, no consensus, Bureaucrat chat needed..--Cometstyles 00:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Since the user has shown interest in continuing and has a marginal %, the bureaucrats decision was to allow him to continue as admin till the next confirmations...--Cometstyles 04:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Fuzheado[edit]

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

  • Remove Remove - doesn't seem to have found a use for the tools. No edits to meta - let alone any admin actions - since becoming an administrator. WJBscribe (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove for the same reason I opposed his RFA. --Brownout(msg) 23:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove one year inactive. Alex Pereira falaê 23:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - he falls under the auto-remove policy on inactivity since he didn't make a single edit in a year.--Cometstyles 23:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Daniel (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove clearly.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - Inactive. -- Avi 05:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive for 1 year.--Kwj2772 08:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive for over a year. EVula // talk // // 15:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Didn't edit or do anything after promotion, which was just over a year ago. Majorly talk 20:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. --Az1568 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive for over a year. Anonymous101 08:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive --Fabexplosive The archive man 18:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove as inactive. Sorry. Anthøny 12:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. Mikhailov Kusserow 04:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove inactivity. Durova 18:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Rights removed per 100% support - --Cometstyles 23:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

HappyDog[edit]

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

  • Remove Remove - 11 edits this year and no log entries. it seems he has no real need for the tool..--Cometstyles 01:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - again, no need for the tool if you're not doing admin work.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - Inactive. -- Avi 05:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. Majorly talk 20:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove seems to have no need for the tools. Anonymous101 08:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • comment: Hi - I am an administrator at MediaWiki.org, and requested admin rights to deal with transferring content from here to there, which includes deleting unwanted items, plus managing a couple of protected pages here that relate to the process. It is true that I do not perform many other administrative duties, and that was always known to be the case, as per my original request. The transwiki process is still on-going (there are still a lot of pages that need sorting through, and either deleting or transferring to MW.org). However it has not been particularly actively pursued of late, neither by me or other MW.org admins (there's been some ad-hoc transferral but no concerted effort for a while). It would be useful to retain sysop privileges on meta, because I do use them occasionally in relation to MW.org, and I do intend to get back into the transwiki process soon. --HappyDog 08:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
    • Fair enough, however I'm a little disappointed by the process. So far, no-one has explained why this right is being removed, or pointed to a policy that suggests that this should be the case. Perhaps your policy docs are out of date? Or maybe just hard to find. Of the policies listed at Meta:Administrators#Policy_for_de-adminship the only one that would apply to me is if I am for some reason considered an untrusted user. Is that the reaons? If not, what is? I just don't understand what the point of this process is, or where it originates from. --HappyDog 17:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jdforrester[edit]

Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat

  • The reasoning after his pseudo-RFB applies here -- barely active as a contributor, admin or bureaucrat. Remove Remove admin and 'crat.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    Apologies; I messed up the timing of his activity. I still view this as marginal levels of activity, but as it is recent, Keep Keep.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Active enough for me. Cbrown1023 talk 02:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep as both - James F. is more than active enough on meta and has made recent use of both bureaucrat and admin tools. Whilst I support some activity requirements, this is overkill. James F. is trustworthy and demonstrates a use for the tools so I see no reason to remove them. WJBscribe (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per above. Daniel (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep as WJB. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per WJBscribe. -- Avi 05:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per WJB. --Meno25 07:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • keep. per all above. --Thogo (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Mardetanha talk 15:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Active enough. MBisanz talk 21:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Active. --Az1568 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Active. --A. B. (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 18:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Avi 04:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop and bureaucrat. Mikhailov Kusserow 05:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per WJB. Anthøny 11:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per WJBscribe (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.snoopy. 06:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep active Durova 18:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

100% in support of keeping rights, no change...--Cometstyles 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Kylu[edit]

Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat

  • Keep Plenty active. EVula // talk // // 05:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep active enough. --Kanonkas 17:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Just barely. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I certainly don't mean to suggest that we don't abuse kylu for not being more active. (though, really, abusing her for damn near any reason works for me) EVula // talk // // 01:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Clearly. ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Yes, should be kept around here to do work. MBisanz talk 21:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Jacob 21:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, OK for me and good experience, -jkb- (cs.source) 22:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support remove - too active, she needs a wiki break ..--Cometstyles 00:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Active. --Az1568 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Active. Sure :)--Nick1915 - all you want 11:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Active. --A. B. (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 18:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Avi 04:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pointless Keep Keep #146 :) Daniel (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop and bureaucrat. Mikhailov Kusserow 05:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep both. xaosflux Talk 04:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.snoopy. 06:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely Keep KeepAnthøny 11:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Cometstyles (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep active Durova 19:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • 100% in support of keeping rights, no change...--Cometstyles 23:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

MaxSem[edit]


Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat

  • Remove Remove Insufficient bribery. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Plenty active, still needs the tools. EVula // talk // // 19:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    WTF? OMG There wasn't a remove here first! Beware the wrath from above!  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    Wrath, wrath, rawr. —Pathoschild 23:05:09, 08 October 2008 (UTC)
    Indeed, maybe the big red letters which clearly says "Please do not vote keep if there is no remove yet " isn't clear enough or someone nedds glasses...--Cometstyles 00:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    They look normal-sized to me. —Pathoschild 00:57:53, 09 October 2008 (UTC)
    {{pointless comment}} Does it really matter that much if someone votes to keep? Majorly talk 00:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    Seriously, that's the most retarded rule ever. EVula // talk // // 01:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    It's certainly up there, hence my comment.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    So why have that rule? It seems to generate this discussion-under-a-vote every election. —Pathoschild 02:41:18, 09 October 2008 (UTC)
    Fixed... ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep... of course. ++Lar: t/c 18:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Per Lar. MBisanz talk 21:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Jacob 21:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, OK for me and good experience, -jkb- (cs.source) 22:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Active. --Az1568 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Ahonc 17:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Active. --A. B. (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 18:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Avi 04:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Daniel (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop and bureaucrat. Mikhailov Kusserow 05:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep both. xaosflux Talk 04:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.snoopy. 06:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - unquestionably. --Herby talk thyme 09:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - per EVula (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep active Durova 19:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

100% in support of keeping rights, no change...--Cometstyles 23:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Mindspillage[edit]

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

  • Remove Remove - sorry, but the only thing she has done this year is protecting the images for the board candidates ..--Cometstyles 23:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Current board member. Cbrown1023 talk 01:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment - losing sysop will not mean losing her board seat...--Cometstyles 01:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Customarily, board members are allowed to have tools on Meta-Wiki when they need it. She can request removal for herself is she deems she "no longer needs it". Cbrown1023 talk 02:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Remove Remove - Marginal activity levels. While she may be a board member, a trusted contributor and her opinion is widely respected, adminship isn't a reflection of any of that. It's a tool to be used; when it's not being used, it's not needed, so remove it. We need admins, not badge-wearers, and I'm sure she'd agree.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - my position is similar to Mike's. Remove them now, and she can have them returned to her should they be necessary. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Cbrown. --Meno25 07:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove (though very weak) Not out of distrust, but out of a lack of need; I think a better standard would be that board members can be granted temporary adminship without jumping thru hoops, but only after demonstrating an actual need. The sysop flag isn't crucial to the position of board member. EVula // talk // // 15:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Extremely low activity. Board member or not, she doesn't meet requirements for activity. Majorly talk 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Per Cbrown. MBisanz talk 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Cbrown1023. --Az1568 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm torn. I'd support giving it back to her if she says she needs it, has anyone asked her view? ++Lar: t/c 05:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I asked last night. Apparently she doesn't care either way. Kylu 06:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep I don't like this removal red tape. If she deserves to keep the tools, let her.. --Jacob 22:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
She doesn't "deserve" them. Board member != Meta adminship. Majorly talk 23:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
For me, "Lack of Interest" ==> "not deserve" (one of the ways to judge which is inactivity) --Jacob 02:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Per Cbrown --Fabexplosive The archive man 18:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Keep. Daniel (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop. Mikhailov Kusserow 05:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Cbrown's points. Mike.lifeguard makes a good point too, though. Anthøny 11:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Cbrown1023 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Mike.lifeguard. Admin tools not needed for board membership. Would gladly return them if activity level rises. Consistent standards for everyone, please. Durova 19:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove after some reflection per Durova and the indifference to the rights. --Herby talk thyme 07:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    • 58% in support of keeping rights, no consensus, Bureaucrat chat needed..--Cometstyles 00:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Bureaucrats favoured the removal of rights since the 58% margin meant it failed consensus as well as per policy..--Cometstyles 04:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mxn[edit]

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

  • hm. Quite active as user, but no admin activity in the last 10 months. Somewhat undecided. --Thogo (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • per below: I wished we had a tool that makes edits on fully protected pages visible... ;) Ok, then it's a clear keep. --Thogo (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • VVV's admin stats tool counts blacklists, portals and edits to system messages as sysop tasks (however not simply any protected page - that'd be too complicated).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, while Minh has made too few loggable admin actions, he is still very active at updating www.wikipedia.org template and other protected portal pages. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 14:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - portal pages are sysop jobs.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Mxn is one of most active editors on meta and maintaining those portals is sure sysop tasks (editing protected pages). --Aphaia 17:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Portal work is definitely adminship stuff, even if it's "non-standard". EVula // talk // // 19:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep This is extremely necessary, I can't imagine the state of the portals without Mxn. Cbrown1023 talk 02:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Cbrown. --Az1568 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per MaxSem. --A. B. (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 18:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- Avi 04:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Daniel (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop. Mikhailov Kusserow 05:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.snoopy. 06:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep definitely. --Meno25 12:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per EVula (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep active. Durova 19:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • 100% in support of keeping rights, no change..--Cometstyles 23:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Patrick[edit]

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

  • Remove Remove - While active as a contributor, they've done only 1 sysop action in the past 3 months, and another in the 3 months previous to that - both of which were portal/system message/blacklist edits. Patrick doesn't need his sysop bit to continue doing the work he's doing currently.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep He's active, so that's all that matters here. He'll find a use for the tools easily. Majorly talk 14:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep- Patrick's active and occasionally finds a use for the tools - seems reasonable to let him keep them for when he needs them if there's no suggestion of misuse. WJBscribe (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep- He finds the tool useful .. in other words having him the mop any other has not to worry how to clean up the debris of his template experiments. Better to keep him, specially there is no ground to think he has abused the right. --Aphaia 20:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, inclined to agree with Majorly and WJB here. Daniel (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per above. Cbrown1023 talk 02:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Active. --Az1568 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep -- give him the benefit of the doubt, given all he's doing here with non-admin work. --A. B. (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 18:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Activity as a non-admin is sufficient in my mind to keep the tools. The fact that an opportunity did not arise for Patrick to use the bit is outweighed by his continued presence here. A present sysop without sysop situations is better than an absent sysop when a sysop is needed. -- Avi 04:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    I fail to understand the assertion that Patrick had no opportunity to use his sysop tools. That's most certainly not the case; there is plenty of work for anyone who cares to do it.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop. Mikhailov Kusserow 05:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Daniel (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sufficiently active. Durova 19:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • 92% in support of keeping rights, no change...--Cometstyles 23:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Raul654[edit]

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

  • Remove Remove - less that 50 edits this year shows the lack of interest in meta..--Cometstyles 23:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - Marginal activity levels as both a contributor and admin. A lack of concern for community norms isn't helpful either.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The comments about my activity level here are fair - I don't do much on meta anymore because meta isn't used much for anything except translation anymore. I do occasionally draft WMF press releases here, and having my admin bit is helpful for that (particularly cleaning up afterwards). However, the comment about community norms is just plain wrong - I helped define many of the community norms and policies on Wikipedia - of course I respect them. Raul654 02:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I wasn't referring to Wikipedia; I was referring to Meta as this is your Meta adminship confirmation. However inactivity is reason enough in my mind for removal (not that there's a lack of work), so I'll leave it at that.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Mike: Could you clarify which norms you think Raul654 has been unconcerned with? Raul: This is Meta, and the norms of Meta are what matter. They are not the same as Commons, not the same as es:wp, not the same as en:wp, etc. ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Per Mike. Majorly talk 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive --Fabexplosive The archive man 18:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove As Lar said, Meta has its own requirements which are different than enwiki, foundationwiki, etc. Should Raul become more active on Meta, there is no reason why he should not be confirmed with flying colors. -- Avi 04:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove as inactive. I'm not sure what's meant by Mike's community norms point, though. Anthøny 11:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Inactive. Mikhailov Kusserow 04:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove insufficient activity. Durova 19:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Rights removed per 100% support - --Cometstyles 23:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Rdsmith4[edit]

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

  • Keep Keep Active on Meta, and though it's primarily as a steward, that's enough reason (in my opinion) to retain sysop. EVula // talk // // 19:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - only 3 sysop actions in the past year, which were editing system messages. That's not active as a Meta admin. Per Meta:Meta-Steward relationship (which technically isn't policy yet), they may take emergency action as a steward, and perform uncontroversial admin tasks. In essence, nothing will change except they won't have a local adminship.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - Dan is very active on meta and has made use of the tools in the past year. I don't think we should just presume Meta:Meta-Steward relationship will become policy and in any event, Dan's admin access predates his becoming a steward, so he should remain an admin were he to stop being a steward... WJBscribe (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Per WJBscribe. I see no point at all in removing active admins, regardless of whether or not they use tools often or not. Majorly talk 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep MBisanz talk 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Active. --Az1568 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Daniel (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per WJBscribe. --A. B. (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 18:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep In my opinion presence and activity on Meta is what matters, not activity with the tools. Should the need for the bit arise, Rd will be able to excercise it. Having the bit with someone who is around does not hurt the project and is not against the Meta norm of requiring active and available sysops. -- Avi 04:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop. Mikhailov Kusserow 05:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per WJB. Anthøny 12:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per WJBscribe (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep active. Durova 19:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • 93% in support of keeping rights, no change...--Cometstyles 23:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Shizhao[edit]


Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat

  • Remove bureaucrat right, as he's never used it, and was only granted it as part of the steward "package". Otherwise, Keep Keep sysop. Majorly talk 20:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove 'crat (unused), Keep Keep admin - (semi-active as an admin on top of stewardship).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Same as above. Daniel (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Why remove the 'crat? We have a lot of 'crats, but how many Chinese speaking ones do we have? Keep Keep both. ++Lar: t/c 05:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
  • Remove bureaucrat right, Keep Keep sysop. Per Majorly --Herby talk thyme 13:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Majorly made a very valid point. (Unused) rights granted in a "package" with steward rights should have been removed long ago, since it's not longer practiced to grant stewards additional rights on Meta. Therefore, bureaucrat => Remove Remove, sysop => Keep Keep as above. --Thogo (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. By the way, foreign-language skills are relevant for bureaucrats -- see Meta:Administrators/confirm/Archives/2008-01#Aphaia where we had many emphatic Japanese language comments meta regulars and bureaucrats could not understand. --A. B. (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop status but remove bur --Fabexplosive The archive man 18:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop Remove Remove bureaucrat (unused) per Herby, Majorly et al. with no prejudice for re-running as a 'crat should Shizhao decide to become more active in Meta-sysoping. -- Avi 04:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep +sysop; Remove Remove 'crat (inactive crat). xaosflux Talk 04:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop, Remove Remove crat, per Mike.lifeguard (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep adminship,Remove Remove bureaucratship. He only used Stewardship, so I seem he doesn't need bureaucratship anymore.--Kwj2772 15:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep adminship, Remove Remove 'crat ops per activity levels. Durova 19:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

85% in favour or crats being removed, sysops remains - crats removed - --Cometstyles 23:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thunderhead[edit]

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

  • Remove Remove (38 edits (not counting userspace) and 6 log actions in 2008) - less that 50 edits this year shows the lack of interest in meta..--Cometstyles 23:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    Please stop saying "lack of interest", that's not necessarily true. Some people have busy lives, it doesn't mean they're "not interested". Inactive by your "calendar year" (not 365 day) standards is one thing, saying that they have no interest is another. Cbrown1023 talk 00:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    adminship is NOT a permanent right, we have a "use it or lose it" policy here unlike some other bigger wikis. He has over 250 edits on wikinews this year and over 50 log actions, so lack of interest applies since his interest has dropped not stopped.. he may become active in the future and if so, he can re-apply again..--Cometstyles 02:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    I'm well aware Comets, having been here longer than you. I did not suggest it "WAS a permanent right" (to mimic your emphasis), I merely suggested that different people have different reasons -- you shouldn't just assume it's lack of interest. Furthermore, I also suggested that different people have different measures of activity. For example, you and I differ. Cbrown1023 talk 16:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - I think Thunderhead is active enough and he has made use of admin tools as recently as last month. WJBscribe (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per WJBscribe. Daniel (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per WJBscribe. Cbrown1023 talk 01:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove - such marginal activity levels don't meet my expectations for administrators.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep - he seems to be engaging in editing recently. Sure, it could be because of the confirmations, but I'd like to AGF. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per WJBscribe. -- Avi 05:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per above. --Thogo (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Comets/Mike. --Herby talk thyme 11:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Active enough. Majorly talk 20:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment - School has been keeping me extremely busy, and I stop in whenever I have any sort of free time. I hope to be more active and thanks to everyone who has supported. Thunderhead 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep passes the meta confirmation active measurement (50 edits per year + 5 edits within 6 months) --Aphaia 22:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep enough edits to keep the bit --Mardetanha talk 00:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Mardetanha. --Az1568 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove per Mike. Huji 07:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per WJBscribe -- Low but sufficient activity; mostly harmless. --A. B. (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 18:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep sysop. Mikhailov Kusserow 05:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep --.snoopy. 06:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per WJBscribe (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep marginal, though. Please be more active. Durova 19:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 80% supported for the rights to be kept, no change..--Cometstyles 23:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)