Meta:Administrators/confirm/bureaucrat chat/April 2008

Discussion page for bureaucrats only. Posts by non bureaucrats may be removed.

General

The Guidelines suggest that "the sysop may lose sysopship if support falls below 75%. This is a Bureaucrat only chat to discuss those candidates that lie on the 75% required to retain sysops on Meta. Fantasy, Hashar and JamesDay received a 100% votes in favour of removal so I will remove their rights soon.

April 2008 confirmations

• 1 .snoopy.

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 2 Bastique

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 3 Cbrown1023

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 4 Cspurrier

Multiple views, will need more thorough review. Cbrown1023 talk 22:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Has removed his own checkuser status. 8 pass/10 remove = nowhere near discretionary range at the moment. When totaling for percentages, please note that Aphaia has voted twice: Once for adminship, once for checkusership. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 5 Drini

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 6 Dungodung

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 7 Effeietsanders

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 8 Fantasy

Clear failed ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

removed, I also removed his cratship along with his admin because well he was given the crat powers along with his sysops and developer..--Cometstyles 07:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• 9 Hashar

Clear failed ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

removed, No Discussions necessary..--Cometstyles 07:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• 10 JamesDay

Clear failed ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

removed, No Discussions necessary..--Cometstyles 07:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• 11 Jon Harald Søby

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 12 Kate

Multiple views, will need more thorough review. Cbrown1023 talk 22:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

10 keep/4 remove, 14 total non-neutral/comments (by numbers alone), ~ 71%. It may be beneficial to get a solid answer from Kate on if they'd like to keep adminship or not. If there's no interest, this developer could simply assign themselves adminship if needed anyway. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 13 Kph

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 14 Lar

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 15 Majorly

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 16 Millosh

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 17 Nick1915

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 18 Nishkid64

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 19 Nixeagle

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 20 Redux

Has removed his own checkuser status, clear pass otherwise. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 21 Sean Whitton

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 22 Shanel

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 23 Sj

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 24 Slade

Multiple views, will need more thorough review. Cbrown1023 talk 22:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

6 keep/7 remove as of now, far below our 75% guideline. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Below 50%, clearly not enough keeps to stay sysop. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• 25 Xaosflux

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 26 Yann

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 27 Zanimum

Clear pass ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Cspurrier

• 18 votes = 8 keep, 10 remove (44%)
  • This was removed by Majorly

Slade

• 16 votes = 6 keep, 7 remove and 3 neutral (46%)
  • This was removed by Anonymous Dissident

Kate

• 20 votes = 10 keep, 4 remove and 6 neutral (71%)

Yes, they all have less than the required 75% needed but none of them have actually spoken about their intentions except Cspurrier who said that he will try to be active as a meta-sysop here.

I'm not sure we can ignore the overwhelming degree of consensus here. I mean, 44% is waaay below the needed range. ----Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Cspurrier should be removed. I agree with AD. If he wants to be active he can become active and request adminship again, which I'm sure he'll pass with flying colours. Majorly (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

ooh great, discussion :DD, yes its wayyyy below but as the link above shows, he plans to be '"more active" in the future' and well before we make any harsh decisions, its better to know if all the other crats who might have not voted on his confirmation have a similar feeling to yours, and Kate is 71% which might prove controversial, I have talked to Kate on IRC and well here is his reply :

"i see no point in taking it away, it'll just make things more annoying next time i need to do something only sysops can do"

well I'll await other crats input in this :) ..--Cometstyles 08:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Kate's was pretty close, and he actually does need it, it's probably better to mark him as kept. However, I really don't think Cspurrier needs it - and the % was less than 50%. There'd be no point in even having this vote if we're just going to ignore the result. Majorly (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Though hardly active as an admin, he is very active at the global meta level and I expect he could need the tool. He is also someone we trust and I expect he will not stupidely let his user account be highjacked. It makes sense to remove editors who have basically left the project and will not use the tool anymore; it makes sense to remove abusive editors. He is in neither situation, so I would just suggest keeping him. Anthere

71% + "bonus points" for steward and developer access. This one's close enough (within 5%) that I'd say our discretion would apply anyway. All those factors together, plus the more relaxed attitudes regarding adminship here, equates to a "we may as well keep 'em". ~Kylu (u|t) 22:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say keep too, for all the reasons listed above. Except one. Having a more relaxed attitude towards *giving* adminship shouldn't mean we be laxer on dealing out consensus when the retraction of the sysop bit is being considered; the fact that we have lax attitudes is therefore no reason to keep someone. But, as I have stated, I still think a keep is in order. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)