Project:Requests for adminship/Gwib (reconfirmation)
Appearance
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, or request for checkusership. Please do not modify it.
Gwib (reconfirmation)[change]
Closed as moot. This user is no longer active with an invitation to return as soon as possible. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gwib (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)
I've QD'd a few pages, and blocked a few users, almost became a 'crat but shot myself in the foot at the last moment. I think we're very close to a downward spiral and want to see if enough people still think that I can help pull us up and out.
I know how to do my job right, but whether or not people trust me enough for the wellbeing of SEWP is another question. One we're here to answer! --Gwib -(talk)- 06:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Candidate's acceptance: I accept. --Gwib -(talk)- 06:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Support[change]
- Hmm... I don't really see why you need reconfirmation, but I suppose I Support. TheAE talk 06:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I never voted on your first RfA, but I'd say File:Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good editor who knows pur basics. TurboGolf 08:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- --vector ^_^ (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is no reason to oppose. --Chenzw Talk 10:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- File:Symbol support vote.svg Support No reasons to oppose at this time. Cheers, Razorflame 22:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- While we're at it, I might make Wikipedia:Requests for editorship/PeterSymonds (reconfirmation) blue at some point. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Of course! :) Juliancolton (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support, good administrator. --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're fine. There really was no trust issue in the first place. Malinaccier (talk) (review) 03:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Clueful editor. I only see less-than relevant opposes, so why not? Shapiros10 03:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- File:Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good admin, no need to lose the tools. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 11:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- File:Symbol support vote.svg Support - No actual need for reconfirmation. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 11:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- File:Symbol support vote.svg Support - Definately still a good admin. - But please, no-one else run a reconfirmation RfA. They are not necessary. Kennedy (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- File:Symbol support vote.svg Support - You are soo Damn Clever :p ...--Cometstyles 13:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- File:Symbol support vote.svg Support - Fine admin, but for reference you didn't need a reconfirmation in the first place. Cheers, RockManQ (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- NonvocalScream (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose[change]
- Gwib has a clear conflict of interest. cassandra (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- A COI with what? Juliancolton (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've no interest in explaining myself. alexandra (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- In short: I found Gwib's incivility towards Matilda in refusing to substantiate his allegation of a COI – and his claim that she was wikhounding him – to be remarkably unbecoming of conduct expected from an administrator. It's the reason why I retired. alexandra (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- A COI with what? Juliancolton (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose due to ridiculous reconfirmation. Admins shouldn't stir up drama for the sake of drama! Soup Dish (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- If he said he was in a downward spiral I would agree. But if he is looking to see if he still has a mandate, I don't see it as drama myself. Yot's on the other hand was definately a drama situation. -Djsasso (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- My main concern is Gwib's apparent lack of understanding for the role of admin. If he wants to turn the project around from its downward spiral, it doesn't matter if he's an admin or not Soup Dish (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Totally valid. I was just making an observation. But I do think that admins rightly or wrongly are looked up to lead by example, and having admins that have the trust of the community can help settle a rocky situation like we suddenly seem to suddenly find ourselves in. (Yes I know admins aren't leaders) -Djsasso (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Djsasso, please do not discribe my reconfirmation as a drama stir up. It was a mistake running it because of a mis-understanding. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 11:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Totally valid. I was just making an observation. But I do think that admins rightly or wrongly are looked up to lead by example, and having admins that have the trust of the community can help settle a rocky situation like we suddenly seem to suddenly find ourselves in. (Yes I know admins aren't leaders) -Djsasso (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- My main concern is Gwib's apparent lack of understanding for the role of admin. If he wants to turn the project around from its downward spiral, it doesn't matter if he's an admin or not Soup Dish (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- If he said he was in a downward spiral I would agree. But if he is looking to see if he still has a mandate, I don't see it as drama myself. Yot's on the other hand was definately a drama situation. -Djsasso (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, of course. Fails to realise there's a human on the other end. Maxim(talk) 21:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Epic hypocrite win --Gwib -(talk)- 21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments[change]
- From what I have seen, great administrator. Just do be careful when moving discussions over using the delete button, as historical data is removed at that point. Better to use copy paste. Let me browse your last 5,000 contributions and the log entries, so I can vote support. Best! NonvocalScream (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- From what I gather, this user has retired from Simple. What should be done with this request? Shapiros10 14:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.