Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Several - 30 October 2008

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result: All listed rights removed.

We have 14 inactive admins, which is nearly half of the total. The following users are proposed to lose adminship for inactivity. 75% support for removal is needed for removing. This will be closed after a week by an active bureaucrat.

Freshstart

Freshstart (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)
Last edit 6 August 2006. Well over 2 years ago.

Support removal. Majorly ^talk 17:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Inactive administrators and bureaucrats are not needed. They can simply ask an active bureaucrat if they become active again. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. - tholly ^--Talk-- 17:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gwib^-(talk)- 18:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal per PeterSymonds. Juliancolton (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. -- Da Punk '95 talk 19:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Never heard of him/her, so really isn't active at all... MC8 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support Removal. If the person comes back, a bureaucrat can give that person admin rights back. Techman224^Talk 22:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PeterSymonds. – RyanCross (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support American Eagle (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hardly ever here. Adminship is not necessary. Kennedy ^(talk) 08:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Synergy 19:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not active. If they return, support re-sysop. Malinaccier (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Chenzw Talk 12:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 15:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Inactive, support removal. Snickers (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If they return, they can have it back imo. B G^7even 17:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oysterguitarist 02:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phaedriel

Phaedriel (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)
Last edit 26 September 2007, over a year ago. Inactive on English Wikipedia as well.

Support removal. Majorly ^talk 17:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (with absolutely no prejudice) - Inactive administrators and bureaucrats are not needed. They can simply ask an active bureaucrat if they become active again. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. - tholly ^--Talk-- 17:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gwib^-(talk)- 18:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal per PeterSymonds. Juliancolton (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Phae was a helpful admin. All Phae did was good. Phae may come back. Phae may still be among us and reading this page. I say maybe hold off for maybe a few months (maybe January) and then, if shes still not active, desysop her. -- Da Punk '95 talk 19:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reminds me of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In ways probably known only to me... LUNCH BREAK!!! MC8 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PeterSymonds. I wish Phaedriel would come back though. :( I've never met her, but she seems like a very nice person and a good administrator. – RyanCross (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support American Eagle (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hardly ever here. Adminship is not necessary. Kennedy ^(talk) 08:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Synergy 19:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not active. If they return, support re-sysop. Malinaccier (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 15:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Snickers (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If they return, they can have it back imo. B G^7even 17:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oysterguitarist 02:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky81682

Ricky81682 (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)
Last edit 19 November 2007; before that, February 2007, and before that, June 2006, and sparse activity through early 2006. Is active on English Wikipedia.

Support removal. Majorly ^talk 17:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Inactive administrators and bureaucrats are not needed. They can simply ask an active bureaucrat if they become active again. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. - tholly ^--Talk-- 17:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gwib^-(talk)- 18:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal per PeterSymonds. Juliancolton (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. -- Da Punk '95 talk 19:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Never heard of him/her, so really isn't active at all... but have you asked him on ENWP? MC8 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PeterSymonds. – RyanCross (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support American Eagle (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hardly ever here. Adminship is not necessary. Kennedy ^(talk) 08:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Synergy 19:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not active. If they return, support re-sysop. Malinaccier (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 15:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snickers (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If they return, they can have it back imo. B G^7even 17:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oysterguitarist 02:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tangotango

Tangotango (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)
Last edit 3 December 2007; sparse activity prior to that. Inactive on English Wikipedia and was recently desysopped on Meta-wiki for inactivity.

Support removal. Majorly ^talk 17:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Inactive administrators and bureaucrats are not needed. They can simply ask an active bureaucrat if they become active again. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. - tholly ^--Talk-- 17:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gwib^-(talk)- 18:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal per PeterSymonds. Juliancolton (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. -- Da Punk '95 talk 19:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Never heard of him/her, so really isn't active at all... MC8 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PeterSymonds. – RyanCross (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support American Eagle (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hardly ever here. Adminship is not necessary. Kennedy ^(talk) 08:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Synergy 19:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not active. If they return, support re-sysop. Malinaccier (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 15:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oysterguitarist 02:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aflm

Aflm (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)
Last edit 19 January 2008, redirecting talk page to userpage, possibly indicating messages aren't going to be read. Had a handful of edits in 2007, but last real activity was June 2006.

Support removal. Majorly ^talk 17:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Inactive administrators and bureaucrats are not needed. They can simply ask an active bureaucrat if they become active again. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. - tholly ^--Talk-- 17:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gwib^-(talk)- 18:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal per PeterSymonds. Juliancolton (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. -- Da Punk '95 talk 19:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Never heard of him/her, so really isn't active at all... MC8 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PeterSymonds. – RyanCross (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support American Eagle (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hardly ever here. Adminship is not necessary. Kennedy ^(talk) 08:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Synergy 19:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not active. If they return, support re-sysop. Malinaccier (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 15:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If they return, they can have it back imo. B G^7even 17:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oysterguitarist 02:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Di

J Di (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)
Last edit 23 January 2008, arguing he was active, adding himself to the active part of the admins page. After April 2007, only edits were really adding himself to active admins, despite being inactive.

Support removal. Majorly ^talk 17:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Inactive administrators and bureaucrats are not needed. They can simply ask an active bureaucrat if they become active again. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. - tholly ^--Talk-- 17:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gwib^-(talk)- 18:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal per PeterSymonds. Juliancolton (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - He was wheelwarring by the looks then. -- Da Punk '95 talk 19:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Never heard of him/her, so really isn't active at all... MC8 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PeterSymonds. – RyanCross (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support American Eagle (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hardly ever here. Adminship is not necessary. Kennedy ^(talk) 08:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Synergy 19:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not active. If they return, support re-sysop. Malinaccier (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --vector ^_^ (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 15:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If they return, they can have it back imo. B G^7even 17:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oysterguitarist 02:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blockinblox

Blockinblox (talk • changes • email • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights • renames)
This is for removal of bureaucrat right only. Only rights change ever was in December 2006. Made 9 renames, the last over a year ago, and 11 bot flags, the last nearly a year ago. Is inactive as an administrator as well, but only for 2 months.

Support removal of bureaucrat. Majorly ^talk 17:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Inactive bureaucrats are not needed. 'Crats keep the flow of renames running and are often called upon for SUL requests. Inactive bureaucrats can cause irritation and confusion. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. - tholly ^--Talk-- 17:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gwib^-(talk)- 18:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal per PeterSymonds. Juliancolton (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. -- Da Punk '95 talk 19:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is one I've actually heard of... but still. MC8 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PeterSymonds. I've seen him around once or twice, but I haven't seen him/her perform any bureaucrat actions. No need for that permission. – RyanCross (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support American Eagle (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hardly ever here. ~~Adminship~~ Bureaucratship is not necessary. Kennedy ^(talk) 08:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Synergy 19:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not active. If they return, support re-sysop/bureaucratship. Malinaccier (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --vector ^_^ (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 15:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If they return, they can have it back imo. B G^7even 17:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oysterguitarist 02:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The removal of bureaucrat. SwirlBoy 39 21:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Why not de-sysop everyone in this collapsible box? The arguments above adhere for all within, not just those mentioned above. --Gwib^-(talk)- 21:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because they've only been inactive a few months. People are allowed to take a break once in a while. However, the above users seem to be on indefinitely long breaks. Majorly ^talk 22:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We shouldn't set the precedent of desysopping inactive administrators as soon as they become inactive. Some of the below are away for too short a period to consider desysopping at the moment, and some of them have genuine reasons for being away. With the exception of Phaedriel, some of the above users are actively editing on other projects, and one of them even has his talk page as a soft redirect to another wiki! If the below are inactive on this project for longer then further clean-out should occur, perhaps reconfirmation of inactive administrators after 8 months to a year of inactivity is a reasonable precedent? PeterSymonds (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to Phaedriel, I am sure she has good reasons for not editing; As to the others my (personal) understanding is that when they come back the then bureaucrats to be will probably not have much trouble re-setting the flag. --Eptalon (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be looked at on a case by case level. If a user is inactive across all of WMF then perhaps 6 months, but if they are active elsewhere ping them after say 8 months, wait for a response for a further month, and if no response remove after 9 months inactivity. Imho that then gives them enough time to respond but also doesn't leave an admin flag on an inactive account. B G^7even 17:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty clear to me: Desysop, the resp. users can ask for reinstatement, if they like.--Eptalon (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.