Meta:Administrators/confirm/bureaucrat chat/January 2009

Non-bureaucrats are invited to leave commentary on the talkpage. Please do not do so here.

Users voluntarily relinquishing rights during the confirmations

alnokta (talk · contribs · CA) removed by Majorly
AmiDaniel (talk · contribs · CA) removed by Daniel

Users which were uncontroversial closes

Akl (talk · contribs · CA)
Andre Engels (talk · contribs · CA)
Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs · CA)
Arria Belli (talk · contribs · CA)
Eloquence (talk · contribs · CA)
guillom (talk · contribs · CA)
Hillgentleman (talk · contribs · CA)
Korg (talk · contribs · CA)
M7 (talk · contribs · CA)
Spacebirdy (talk · contribs · CA)
Walter (talk · contribs · CA)

Closes requiring discussion

The following discussion is closed.

.anaconda

Discussion link: click here
Rights under confirmation to be discussed: sysop, bureaucrat
Vote counts:
- sysop: 11 Keep, 4 Remove, 73%
- bureaucrat: 10 Keep, 5 Remove, 67%
Status: In progress

I think there is enough consensus to keep both rights here. Though the magic % is close, there is at least one vote that is contradictory (Alexanderps quotes me, and says to remove, but I changed to keep). Majorly ^talk 00:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vote, because it would have been neutral for both. But I think 73% is too close to remove, but 67% is too far away from 75 to keep without further discussion. --Thogo (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say it should be closed as keep both, as the argument was made (without refutation) that most of this users' admin work was actually crat work as well. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Majorly says, I quotes him, but he change your vote, so, I think a solution: keep sysop (turnover my vote) and remove 'crat, per numbers. Alex Pereira ^falaê 12:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are both keeps to my way of thinking. ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, keep both per Daniel--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 19:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both, I think that bureaucrat flag is a matter of trust and shouldn't be revoked unless there is a complete inactivity. --M/ 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very much near the borderline, so yeah he should keep both ...--Comet styles 02:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Result: Seems to be consensus here to keep both. Majorly ^talk 23:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angela

Discussion link: click here
Rights to be confirmed: ~~sysop,~~ bureaucrat
Vote counts:
- bureaucrat: 11 Keep, 6 Remove, 65%
Status: In progress

Observing this numbers, remove 'crat status. Alex Pereira ^falaê 12:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Over 50%, seems a keep to me even if not 75%, which is policy. ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
remove 'crat, no reason for removing sysopship--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 19:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think that bureaucrat flag is a matter of trust and shouldn't be revoked unless there is a complete inactivity. --M/ 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Bearing in mind this is not an RFA, but a discussion to evaluate consensus of what happened...) The remove votes claim Angela is inactive, which is true, in bureaucrat tasks. However, she is not totally inactive, and it's complete inactivity we're thinking about here. Majorly ^talk 20:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the consensus is for her to keep her sysop rights but 65% for her cratbit is a bit too low but close to the borderline and because she is an active sysop, I don't think she should lose this right just yet...--Comet styles 02:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Result: This is pretty close, but I think there is consensus here to keep both rights. Also judging by the original vote, it was only 10% off the 75% mark, so no need to take further action here. Majorly ^talk 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthere

Discussion link: click here
Rights under confirmation to be discussed: ~~sysop,~~ bureaucrat, checkuser
Vote counts:
- bureaucrat: 9 Keep, 7 Remove, 56%
- checkuser: 9 Keep, 7 Remove, 56%
Status: In progress

On Checkuser, Anthere does not appear to meet policy regarding activity with the tool - she has not used it in over a year, so that should result in an automatic removal. Other arguments presented to keep CU are along the lines of "it's Anthere" and "she can watch other CUs". WRT the second point, we already have several elected CUs on this wiki, who are perfectly capable of watching each other. I personally do not see the need for an extra, who hasn't used it for over a year. And "it's Anthere" tells us nothing about anything.

*As for bureaucrat, bearing in mind I voted to remove, there is no consensus to remove it in the discussion. Though the % is the same for CU, CU has policies regarding inactivity that ought to be followed. Majorly ^talk 00:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I didn't vote because it would have been neutral. But 56% support is a clear remove consensus, given that we have a policy that says something about 75%. --Thogo (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Majorly says, remove checkuser, per inactivity (none checks). Bureaucrat: 56%, for me, is remove. Alex Pereira ^falaê 12:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sadly, there's no consensus, remove--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 19:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'crat, I think that bureaucrat flag is a matter of trust and shouldn't be revoked unless there is a complete inactivity. Remove checkuser, since there is no activity and she can reapply when needed. --M/ 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well consensus wise, i think she should lose her crat rights as well as CU which she actually meant to use temporarily but forgot to remove ..--Comet styles 02:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result was bureaucrat and CU removed. Majorly ^talk 23:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brion VIBBER

Discussion link: click here
Rights under confirmation to be discussed: sysop, checkuser
Vote counts:
- sysop: 7 Keep, 12 Remove, 37%
- checkuser: 5 Keep, 14 Remove, 26%
Status: In progress

Checkuser is a fairly clear remove. Adminship is, as the other devs, unnecessary, even a keep voter (Cometstyles) points this out (Keep - sysop, though he really doesn't need it). It seems there is a fair consensus to remove sysop too. Majorly ^talk 00:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious remove for both I'd say. Nothing changes for Brion anyway, except that he will really miss the annual confirmations in the future. ;) --Thogo (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvius remove both status. Alex Pereira ^falaê 12:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're coming around to thinking that Dev means doesn't need the others, so remove, plus the margins are below 50% in both cases. If he thinks we erred, he can turn them back on, and that will be that. ++Lar: t/c 18:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove both status--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 19:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, as said somewhere keep it if people trust you and you use it. Trust is out of question, here. And if needed, he can use steward and/or dev power here, there and everywhere. --M/ 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zomg, avoid using the word trust. If you were not trustworthy enough, you would have never become an admin here...and as per consensus, remove both sysops and CU rights ..--Comet styles 02:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Result: Both rights removed. Daniel (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EVula

Discussion link: click here
Rights under confirmation to be discussed: ~~sysop,~~ bureaucrat
Vote counts:
- bureaucrat: 14 Keep, 3 Remove, 82%
Status: In progress

Um, this is obvious keep. Majorly ^talk 00:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, just an obvious keep. Given the magical number is 75%, to be only 8% over requires a sanity check if nothing else (especially as we're likely to be discussing at length someone 8% under). Daniel (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82% doesn't need discussion, I think. --Thogo (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Togo says. Alex Pereira ^falaê 12:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this one up for discussion? Just to be on the safe side? Yes, pretty clear keep. ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep, without doubt--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 19:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think that bureaucrat flag is a matter of trust and shouldn't be revoked unless there is a complete inactivity. --M/ 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Result: Bureaucrat right kept. Daniel (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

notafish

Discussion link: click here
Rights under confirmation to be discussed: sysop
Vote counts:
- sysop: 11 Keep, 3 Remove, 77%
Status: In progress

77% say keep, that's enough. Majorly ^talk 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, the numbers say keep. --Thogo (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep, more than 75%. Alex Pereira ^falaê 12:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as above, must be here just to be on safe side, so I'll confirm the keep. ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep, sure--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 19:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep, highly trusted user. --M/ 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well consensus is in favour of her retaining her right..--Comet styles 02:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Result: Sysop kept. Daniel (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Starling

Discussion link: click here
Rights under confirmation to be discussed: sysop, bureaucrat, checkuser
Vote counts:
- sysop: 8 Keep, 10 Remove, 44%
- bureaucrat: 7 Keep, 11 Remove, 39%
- checkuser: 7 Keep, 11 Remove, 39%
Status: In progress

(Note, I voted to remove all his rights). For adminship, most keep votes are unexplained, or have flawed reasoning. "Dev" is a reason for removal, not keeping adminship, because he already has it, making local rights redundant. For bureaucratship and checkusership, there are even fewer votes to keep, and more to remove. He is apparently not active as a CU, so should be automatically removed. Majorly ^talk 00:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there was insufficient support for Tim to be considered confirmed, for the little it's worth (given the "Staff" permission). Daniel (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same as for Brion, the numbers clearly say remove all. And he will have the rights anyway, but without the annual confirmation mill. --Thogo (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Observing the numbers and the coments, remove all. Alex Pereira ^falaê 12:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As BRION... remove all, if we erred, he'll put them back. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
remove all, no consensus at all--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 19:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
remove, same reason for Brion. --M/ 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is clear, remove ALL.. --Comet styles 02:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Result: Sysop, checkuser and bureaucrat rights removed. Daniel (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]