Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2015-06/User:JohnC5 for admin: difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Dan Polansky (talk | contribs) →User:JohnC5 for admin: Support on the condition that the nominated editor will lose admin rights if a confirmation vote does not achieve consensus for keeping admin rights; oppose to the extent the condition is not met. ... |
|||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
# {{support}} — ''[[User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|Ungoliant]] <sup>([[User talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|falai]])</sup>'' 14:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC) |
# {{support}} — ''[[User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|Ungoliant]] <sup>([[User talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV|falai]])</sup>'' 14:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
# {{support}} (and no worries, Semper — non-WF Wiktionarians were going to nom him anyway). —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 05:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC) |
# {{support}} (and no worries, Semper — non-WF Wiktionarians were going to nom him anyway). —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 05:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
# {{support}} on the condition that the nominated editor will lose admin rights if a confirmation vote does not achieve consensus for keeping admin rights; '''oppose''' to the extent the condition is not met. This is nothing personal; it is as a matter of general useful principle. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 09:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==== Oppose ==== |
==== Oppose ==== |
Revision as of 09:49, 8 June 2015
User:JohnC5 for admin
- Nomination: I hereby nominate JohnC5 (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. He's not a bad user. Type56op9 (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Vote starts: as soon as the nomination is accepted
- Vote ends: 23:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Acceptance: I accept. Thanks for the opportunity! @ObsequiousNewt, Metaknowledge, DCDuring, Pengo: I don't know whether y'all might be interested in this? —JohnC5 14:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Languages: en-us-N, la-3, de-2, fr-2, ine-pro-2, sa-1, fro-1, non-1, gem-pro-1, grc-1
- Timezone: UTC-6
Support
- Support — I was going to start just such a vote today. This user is extremely helpful, produces truly top-notch entries, and is polite almost to a fault. He is becoming increasingly proficient in the use of modules; the ability to edit certain protected pages would be an asset to him and, as a result, the project. It should go without saying that he can be trusted with these tools. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Likes etymologies and ancient languages. My kind of a Wiktionarian. --Vahag (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Why not. --Z 15:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support — Ungoliant (falai) 14:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support (and no worries, Semper — non-WF Wiktionarians were going to nom him anyway). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support on the condition that the nominated editor will lose admin rights if a confirmation vote does not achieve consensus for keeping admin rights; oppose to the extent the condition is not met. This is nothing personal; it is as a matter of general useful principle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)