Meta:Requests for adminship/Danny B. (2)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Danny B. edit

Ending 9 November 2018 14:29 (UTC)

Danny B. (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

I would sincerely prefer if this not happened and I wouldn't have to bother the community with this request, but it just did - just a few hours ago I have unfortunatelly been revoked my adminship rights due to "inactivity", which in my particular case meant I did not edit Meta enough. Yes, I have number of edits lower than required by the policy, because I simply did not spot any relevant place to be involved in and I prefer not to be disingenuous and perform some dummy edits eg. of my userpage just to hit the necessary count.

However, I have patrolled Meta quite a lot thus I have quite reasonable number of logged activities regarding fighting spam, vandalism and test edits, so I consider myself quite active admin, since I follow the RC stream and react often when I spot something what needs admin action, however sometimes I am not fast enough and other admins using special patrol tools are faster than me (and light?) so when hitting the big red button (delete/block) I relatively often see the message that the page has been deleted or user has been blocked in the meantime... ;-) Stewards could also confirm that I quite often refer cross-wiki issues with users on stewards' channel on IRC, so I think there is enough proof of my enough adminship-relevant activity.

I have gained my recent admin rights seven years ago with 100% support after I've been suggested and encouraged several times before by various people to request them, apart from other reasons because I've already had such rights granted temporarily several times in past (either directly or per my requests). Apart from patrolling-related actions mentioned above I was also using (and plan to use) the rights for various technical or formal (edit protected) purposes. I am not aware of any questionable admin action here during those seven years.

I would like to continue with my admin service to the community so far, hence I'm submitting this request.

Thank you.

I have also started the discussion on "Admins inactivity criteria", because - regardless of the result of this request - I think the criteria should be revisited to reflect the real admin work, so please take a look there if you are interested. Thank you.

— Danny B. 14:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support because they've been doing a great job as an admin before from what I've seen and I see no reason why they shouldn't have the mop back. I find it amazing that someone who deleted 52 pages within the last 6 months isn't allowed to delete any more pages just because they haven't made a certain number of actual edits, which is why I supported this proposal as well.--SkyGazer 512 (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I also disagree with your rights being removed. You have over ten logged actions in the past six months and are clearly not inactive. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support No issues, has been working without issue - we should revisit the policy for sure (in the right forum). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per standard that should be followed from this discussion. Nihlus 15:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enough logged actions. One line rule for inactivity: less than 10 actions (any kind of action) in 6 months: automatic removal... and let'us worry with more important stuff.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 18:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Procedural issues aside, this user has had a record of confrontational interactions with other editors (as mentioned on the past GEI requests [1][2][3] and a desysop on cs.wikiversity [4]) and making serious accusations against other editors without evidence on this wiki [5][6][7] and I would rather they did not hold admin rights here. (As an obvious disclosure, I did have a vested interest in the last diff presented, however my perception of this editor goes further than that, as shown at the other diffs) --Rs chen 7754 18:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2014 and 2015 incidents? No reflections on their actions on 2018, 2017, 2016? If that is your evidence of someone's current approach, it seems a little harsh and not reflecting how someone may have learnt and adapted. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last 500 edits on Meta go back all the way into 2014, so unfortunately we don't really know. --Rs chen 7754 00:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Danny B. being very unpleasant a few years ago. But he's been an admin on Meta for quite a while now, and has only done good stuff from what I've seen. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets criteria for being an admin at meta. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 17:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support largely because the interpretation of activity requirements is outdated and is not in line with the current needs of meta. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't think someone with just 8 edits in a half year should be an admin. --MF-W 10:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree fundamentally with MF-Warburg. We have collapsing levels of participation on Meta and making six edits in half a year doesn't seem unreasonable now. I think it's deeply shameful that activity has collapsed that far, but it's a reflection of how irrelevant Meta is becoming. I do think it's something it would be useful to resolve, to try and get Meta busier, but until that happens, enforcing minimum activity levels is just a euphemism for making otherwise active administrators like Courcelles and Danny B make pointless, vacuous edits to keep pedants like MF-Warburg happy. Nick (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely… Danny B. is very helpful and has been active as a meta administrator on a regular basis for many years. -- Hoo man (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Qualified, and reliable. Vermont (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok. RadiX ∞ 10:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12 supports, 2 opposes. Done. Matiia (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above request page is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Comments about this page should be made in Meta:Babel or Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.