IRC/wikipedia-en-admins/Policy ratification

All users who are able to receive (or currently have) admin rights on the English Wikipedia are entitled to access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. (For our purposes, "admin rights" is defined as the ability to delete and protect pages.)

This includes all users listed at en:Special:ListUsers/sysop, stewards (who have admin rights through the global steward group), staff (who have admin rights through the global staff group), sysadmins (who have admin rights through the global sysadmin group), and any former admin who would (theoretically) be able to go to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and be re-granted the admin bit upon request.

In the case of permanent imposed de-adminnings, the user shall lose access to -en-admins. In the case of temporary de-adminnings, the user shall lose access for the length of the temporary de-adminning.

IRC account	Wiki account	Vote
AlisonW	AlisonW
Angela	Angela
bastique	Bastique	Support
BradPatrick	BradPatrick
Chairboy	Chairboy
DavidGerard	David Gerard	Looks reasonably sane. Needs an additional clause for ArbCom/Jimbo additions to the allowed list e.g. "or by ArbCom or Jimbo variation." Otherwise, good.
delphine	notafish
Deskana	Deskana	Support.
Dmcdevit	Dmcdevit	I'll enforce it if the channel community wants it. Personally, I think it's better if the channel decides on a case-by-case basis whether there is consensus for someone's inclusion/exclusion, though.
Fennec	Fennec
FloNight	FloNight	Support as currently worded without any changes.
FT2	FT2	All options on the table have good rationales; comfortable with all of them, no issue needing intervention. Abstain in favor of wider consensus viewpoint.
interiot	Interiot
jacoplane	Jacoplane
James_F	Jdforrester	Abstaining as I'm only an op ex officio.
JohnReaves	John Reaves	Looks good.
jwales	Jimbo Wales
kibble	Cbrown1023	Support
kim_register	Kim Bruning
Krimpet	Krimpet	Support
kylu	Kylu	Support
lar	Lar	Support
mackensen	Mackensen
Mark_Ryan	Mark	Support. If someone is no longer an admin — temporarily or permanently — they shouldn't be in the channel. Getting channel access back is so simple that I have no problem with shifting the onus of seeking channel access back to them after they regain their adminship (whether automatically or otherwise).
martinp23	Martinp23	support. We do this anyway, don't we? I oppose David Gerard's suggestion and it does not appear to have been discussed at all anywhere, and any change along that lines should come after the policy ratification. I also oppose Ryanpostlethwait's suggestion (while agreeing with tawker's).
Mike_H	Mike Halterman	Support
mindspillage	Mindspillage
mnemonic1	MGodwin
Morven	Morven
MZMcBride	MZMcBride	Support
Nishkid64	Nishkid64
One_	One
PhilSandifer	Phil Sandifer
Rjd0060	Rjd0060	Support
Ryanpostlethwait	Ryan Postlethwaite	Oppose removal of access for temporary desysoppings when the user automatically gets the bit back after their suspension.
sannse	sannse
seanw	Sean Whitton
Shanel	Shanel
Tawker	Tawker	Oppose removal for when user voluntarily requests desysopping and can auto receive it back upon request
UninvitedCompany	UninvitedCompany
YellowMonkey	Blnguyen