Meta:Administrators/confirm/Archives/2008-10

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Dbl2010

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

FrancoGG

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

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

Fuzheado

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

HappyDog

HappyDog (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections) 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

Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat

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

Kylu

Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat

MaxSem


Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat

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

Mindspillage

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

  • Frankly, such temp adminships are at the discretion of the community, not the board member; she's free to request another one if she has need in the future. In all likelihood it would be granted with haste.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
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)

Mxn

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

Patrick

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

Raul654

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

Rdsmith4

Rdsmith4 (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

Rights to be confirmed: sysop

Shizhao


Rights to be confirmed: sysop, bureaucrat

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

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

Thunderhead

Thunderhead (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections)

Rights to be confirmed: sysop