UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Rosslessness/2014-01-31 Re-Evaluation

Administration » Sysop Archives » Rosslessness » 2014-01-31 Re-Evaluation

Rosslessness

• Rosslessness (talk | contribs | UDWiki contribs | vndl data)

He is actually already overdue by some minutes, so let's get that ball rolling. -- Spiderzedâ–ˆ 00:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't care if he's inactive (ditto for boxy). 8 more months. Make it happen. —Aichon— 07:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Ross=Boss. Keep. ~ _{16:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)}
• Noun-ish. Mostly everyone is inactive. Nice to have around occasionally. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Being new here I can't vouch on my experience with Ross, but their User page and contribs speak positive volumes. You have my vote. --Wez 11:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Strong against. Power-hungry, unreasonable, highly volatile, and his history of trolling are just a few of the reasons. As someone who cares deeply about this wiki, I feel continuing this abusive use of authority can only end poorly. --_K 22:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Question - How do you feel today? (Mostly asking because, unlike Aichon, I'm not 100% comfortable with re-promoting someone if they don't show up to their own A/RE.) Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  I'm only comfortable with it because I'm no longer a 'crat and don't have to take this stuff as seriously as you do. :P —Aichon— 16:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  His user page says to use his talk page if you need him, so perhaps your question would be better asked there. I think he checks in when summoned but probably otherwise doesn't check here that often. ~ _{18:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)}

  Looks like SZ's messaged him. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  Look I responded, because people used my talk page. I'm feeling fine. I do pop in occasionally, and I'm never more than an email away. I'd like to keep the button in an absentee landlord type way. I'll tell you what. Retain me and I'll nominate 404 for historical status. --Rosslessness 17:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• keep. -- 05:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. this dump would fall apart without him.--User:Sexualharrison12:28, 26 January 2014
• no why keep someone who is inactive? He can't very well run anything if he's not here. If he comes back he's got my 2 thumbs up but until then no. --Storm 21:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's been a week so comments are closed, but we're giving Ross a couple days to respond before making a decision. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, after a super brief discussion SZ and I have decided to rule this one as retained. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 02:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)