Jump to content

Wiktionary:Votes/2017-01/Dominic for de-admin

Add links
From Wiktionary, the free dictionary

Dominic for de-admin

[edit]

Voting on: Removing User:Dominic as admin. No edits since 2013.

Schedule:

Discussion: Absolutely no prior discussion has been undertaken.

Note: Contrary to what WF wrote above, there was one vote before to remove Dominic's admin bit: Wiktionary:Votes/2015-08/Dominic for de-sysop. The vote was never posted and thus did not really undergo serious consideration. That time, WF notified Dominic on his talk-page and he never responded. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per the general reasoning (security of accounts, no dangerous concentration of power, newbies knowing whom to contact, sysops should be up to date, etc). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Droigheann (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support SemperBlotto (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support What Metaknowledge said. No prejudice and consider fast-tracking him back if he ever returns (but I doubt he'll have time). Equinox ◑ 18:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support one of those admins that were not elected by a community vote.--Dixtosa (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support If I buggered off for a year I wouldn't be surprised if my status had been altered when I returned. — Saltmarsh. 08:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Permanently blocked user. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support He's been contacted by e-mail and hasn't responded, so I assume he doesn't care. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Fast track return to admin if he wants it. DCDuring TALK 22:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose. Special:Log/Dominic shows the last admin action is from 15 June 2013. Less than 5 years have elapsed since then. My rule of thumb is that 5 years have to elapse from the last admin action. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Less than five years inactivity, and enough potential that he may return. Additionally the user is active occasionally on other projects and can be contacted, which lessens the risk of the account being hijacked (which is the one and only case where I support removal of administrator rights). --Neskaya sprecan? 23:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can he be contacted, though? He has not responded to my email or messages left on his talk-page. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

[edit]
  1. Abstain. Not important to me, although it can be a good idea to keep sysops fresh so newer users know who they should actually be going to for guidance, etc. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain Octahedron80 (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not allowed to vote, obviously, but it's worth mentioning that Dominic is also a Checkuser. Perhaps that privilege should be stripped too...--Quadcont (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, WTF? No he's not, dummy!. Get back to feeding bots! --Quadcont (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]

Passed: 9-2-2 (81.8%-18.2%). @Stephen G. Brown. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Stephen (Talk) 02:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2017-01/Dominic_for_de-admin&oldid=42354472"