Wiktionary:Requests for permissions/Archive 2

From Wiktionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is where the successful and unsuccessful nominations for adminship, bureaucratship, and desysoppings go.

Successful nominations[change]

TBC (desysop)[change]

Hello people. I want to propose the desysop of TBC per the policy. He has been inactive for more than a year and has been desysopped on other projects. Thanks, Pmlineditor  09:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - Yep, he hasn't made any actions in over a year and he meets the policy. Razorflame 10:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per no actions and edits in over 1 year. --Barras (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I disagree with the desysoping of inactive administrators and the inactivity policy. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Inactive for over a year. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, per the policy. Snake311 (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Has TBC been notified by talk page or email of the current discussion? I think it's only fair s/he be informed of this desysop vote. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, he has been notified via email. Pmlineditor  07:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Closed: After about seven days and at 4 to 1 I close this as successful. 80% support and per our policy 65% in support is needed. I request the removal of his rights on meta. --Barras (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Rights removed by steward M7. --Barras (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


With Razor's resignation, and it being unlikely that he'll regain the bureaucrat bits any time soon, we've been left with one inactive bureaucrat, Brett (talk · changes). Barras is currently running for 'crat, to fill in the role, but I think we could do with one more - that way, bureaucrat tasks will be done quicker, without a lot of waiting, and we'll have more backup if one of them becomes inactive for whatever reason.

I'm among the most active users here, checking at least a few times a day, and I think I would make a suitable bureaucrat. FWIW, I'm already a bureaucrat at en.wikinews and SEWQ, so I have some experience with how to use the tools. No biggie if I don't get it, just thought I could help the project in more areas with the extra tools. Thanks for your time and consideration, Tempodivalse [talk] 19:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. No problems here. I trust this users' judgement and I believe this user will use the tools to help positively enhance what he already does here on the Simple English Wiktionary. As a side note, Brett has told me via email that he plans on being back full-time sometime in mid to late-December. Razorflame 19:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose support. i hav problem with tpyos typos. Snake311 (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Hell, yes. Responsible user; good work on this and other projects. Pmlineditor  09:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • No objection for an other crat. --Barras (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Closed as promoted! No opposes. I've set your rights to 'crat. Congratulations. --Barras (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi there!

Well, I was now very surprised. I was now (as I do every day) looking on the RCs and saw this. The closure page on meta is now deleted (if someone want to see the content, I can send it via mail). After this, I wrote an not very nice comment on Razorflame's talk page. My next look was at this. There, I saw that Razorflame has requested the removal of his rights, both admin and crat.

Well, now if we have one crat who seems to be more inactive than before (when Razorflames request was made) and the second is no longer a crat, I'd like to request the flag for myself. I had already the concerns that Razorflame will not really long be a crat and well, you can see the result. At this time, I was concerned that we need only one crat, but this one is more and more not active and I learned on WP that the numbers shouldn't be that important.

I think I would be a good candidate for the tools. I'm not the most active user here, but I'm mostly around on simpleWP and get mails when someone changes my talk page here. Furthermore, I watch the RCs of this wiki on IRC and so I'm able to react to request very fast if someone needs a bot flag or anything else. I'm already an admin here for some time and also an admin and oversighter on simpleWP as well as one of the meta admins. I think I can be trusted with the crat tools here as well and can help here more. MY time zone is UTC+1 which means it would be good as Brett is in north America. So, we can have users from different time zones.

Thanks for consideration.

--Barras (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Trusted user, and with the recent inactivity of Brett, plus Razor's resignation, we need an additional crat. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Trust this user to do well. And with inactivity of Brett, I would definitely say he is a good candidate. -Djsasso (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Ja. Bluegoblin7 (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I'm obviously not take as is, but whynot Jamesofur (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Trusted user. Pmlineditor  09:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sure, Cheers, Razorflame 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose - User has not demonstrated a need for the tools here, and I am not sure if I can support someone gaining the bureaucrat rights after only gaining the administrator rights less than two months ago. Razorflame 16:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

    • You just oppose due to my oppose which means more and more that you don't know how to use any kind of the tools correctly. FYI, I have the admin tools here over 3 months (18 August to now means over 3 months). Would you explain me who you would demonstrate the need of the crat tool? Here aren't that many bot requests, renaming requests and RFxs. There is no way to give a reason for needing them exempt for helping with it when needed. You didn't demonstrated that you need the tools on here... --Barras (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't demonstrate the need for the bureaucrat tools, I only accepted Jamesofur's nomination because it seemed like a good idea at the time. Apparently, I was wrong. Yes, you have been here a while, but I would like to see a bit more of you before I support you for bureaucrat. I am opposing you not because of your oppose to me regaining my sysop tools, but because you are not active enough, in my opinion, to be a good bureaucrat on this Wiktionary at this point in time. I don't doubt that you know how to use the tools correctly, but I can't support a user who I cannot guarantee will be active enough to warrant the need for the tools.
      • Furthermore, your insinuation that I don't know how to use any of the tools appropriately is quelled by my appropriate promotion of Pmlineditor to administrator following a successful RfA, as well as the debotting of CarsracBot after incorrect edits. As for my usage of the administrator tools, I believe that I have demonstrated a sound knowledge of every tool granted to an administrator during my 10 months tenure as an administrator here. I have currently made the most admin actions here, and out of all the actions that I have made, only 3 or 4 of them were incorrect, and those incorrections were quickly corrected and eliminated.
      • This switch to oppose has nothing to do with your oppose to my regaining of the tools, and everything to do with what I think is best for the Simple English Wiktionary. Razorflame 16:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
        • As you know and as I stated above: I'm not the most active user here, but I'm one the most active users on simpleWP and nearly every around on IRC for several hours where I always see if something needs to be done here. This is not my homewiki and won't be it in the future. That you first supported and then switched to oppose in this way here show that this is even revenge or that you don't not think about any of your edits or actions. Perhaps it means both. This then means that you shouldn't get the crat/sysop bit back. You opposed me on my meta RFA (last month) because you don't trust my judgement. THis would be a reason to oppose here here. But you switched because I opposed the regaining of your tools. There is a clear relation. I guess you thought I will support you if you support me. --Barras (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done--Brett (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


Hello all!

I want to nominate Pmlinediter for adminship on this wiktionary. He is a very useful editor and does a really good work. I know him from other project and I know that he will do a good job. He is already admin on three simple projects and also a global rollbacker. I think the extra tools would be very helpful for him and also for all others. Good luck Barras (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: I accept this nomination. Thank you Barras for having the trust in me to nominate me. I hope that I can become an admin and help the community. Thank you for your consideration. Pmlineditor  18:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support per my nomination. Barras (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Active user who knows the proper formatting. Trusted user on other projects. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Trusted user on other projects, should do well with administrator privs here as well. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Trusted user who will not likely abuse the tools, and really, that is all that should matter. Tiptoety (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support No concerns. –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 23:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Good user, can be trusted! --Skenmy talk 19:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Even though I am going to close this, I feel that supporting this user will not be a conflict of interest because I have nothing against this user in any way, shape, or form. This user has matured greatly over the past month and has improved in the correct formatting of entries, as well as overall as a great user here, and therefore, he has my trust and will make a good administrator. Razorflame 20:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: Consensus has been formed and with 7 supports, no opposes, and with 100% support, you are hereby an administrator. I wish you luck in the future. Razorflame 00:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you all for your supports. Thanks to Barras for the nom and to Razorflame for closing this RfA. I hope to serve the community well as an admin. Pmlineditor  07:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


End date of this discussion: September 26, 2009
Rules: at least 65% of the votes cast need to be in support that the users lose their tools. Less means they keep them.

I propose to remove from all these users their sysop flag (bureaucrat flag). I don't see a reason for them to have the tools. They didn't use their tools for over one year. --Barras (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


  • Comment Has anyone tried emailing these users about this desysop vote? I think it's only fair to notify them about this and give them an opportunity to make a statement. h2g2bob and Gmcfoley don't have email enabled, but Flcelloguy does. Perhaps someone should send him an email? Tempodivalse [talk] 14:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I mailed the last one. The others have disabled the e-mail function. Barras (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And I've notified the others by talk page, just in case they have the "email when talk page is changed" function enabled in their prefs. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


  • Support - per my "nom". Barras (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support PmlineditorTalk 10:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - too short a time compared to the other two.--   CR90  10:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    Even then 1.5 years is a hell lot of time. PmlineditorTalk 10:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    True, but I think I'll stick with my vote. But I will rethink it.--   CR90  21:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Yotcmdr (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comments in the above section. Tempodivalse [talk] 12:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Griffinofwales (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not enough time has passed to remove his flags. I believe that we should only remove the flags if the user is inactive for at least 2 years. Razorflame 17:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't not to compare with the others. He is still inactive for over one year. His last actions were to promote Brett to crat. I don't want to compare him with the others. This is a own request just at the same time like the others. Barras (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, In my opinion a year is a good "rough" cutoff, it's been just over 1.5 Jamesofur (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Snake311 (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I have requested both flags of H2g2bob to be removed due to the fact that there was 70% support for the removal of the flags, and the threshold was set at 65%. I have requested it here. Razorflame 03:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: Per the Stewards request to make an official desysop policy Razorflame posted a discussion here
Note: The above result is still valid, but is pending the adoption of a local desysopping policy.


90% of the votes were in support of this users' flag getting removed. I have requested removal of the flag here. Razorflame 14:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


90% of the votes were in support of this users' flag getting removed. I have requested removal of the flag here. Razorflame 14:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


I would like to nominate Razorflame as a new Bureaucrat. Brett being gone for a month or so and the unclosed RfA above drives home the point that it's often better to have repetition when your able to. Two crats around makes it much more likely that one will be here when needed and allows for the possibility that there is a conflict of interest regarding either of them. Especially for positions beyond SysOp I think you want to pick the person who is both qualified and able to give the most to the project. Razorflame has had experience with the admin tools across the board and has more then 3700 edits on simple Wiktionary alone and so is definitely qualified. His recent departure (at least for now) from simpleWiki also makes him the perfect candidate to give more undivided time to the project then other active admins would be able to. In the end he's the best man for the job and can be trusted with the tools so the better question is why not? :) Jamesofur 06:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidate please accept your nomination:I humbly accept. Razorflame 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per my nom (even though I'm voting before he accepts) Jamesofur 06:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Why do we really need an other crat for a project with about 8(?) (semi)active users? There are 2(?) bot flags which needs to be granted each year and normally one sysop flag all three months or so. In a case as above, we can simply call the stewards to grant a flag. There is no need for an other crat, imo. I think we should only elect a new crat, when our current crat leaves this wiki. And my counting problem: We have two flaged crats. First remove the not needed flags from users and then elect new people for this position. Not the other way around. Furthermore, I'm not 100% sure, if Razor is the best candidate for this tools. Barras 14:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
If you think there is someone else you'd prefer please feel free to nominate them, we can also have the discussion about whether we want to have more then 1 new one if both have consensus. In my opinion we can't count H2g2bob as a crat when his last edit and logged action was changing Brett's status over a year and a half ago (Feb 08) [1]. I totally agree that we should remove flags from users who don't use it to be honest we also have admins who haven't had edits or log actions for over 3 years [2] only has 109 edits and 5 logged actions. I would definitely support removing flags that are a year or two old (This isn't EnWiki) but given that it failed so recently I didn't want to bring it up again right away. I'll totally admit I'm using a little bit of the it's no big deal concept, I don't see any reason NOT to give Razorflame the tools and I think it would be a benefit to a project that still has a lot of growth potential to have an additional crat around when the need arises. I also think its good to give it to someone who I've seen really believes in that potential. Jamesofur 18:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Where is the benefit of having more users with more tools? That would be like on simplewiki. *cough* Powerhungry *cough*. Someone just was elected for being crat, than became cu... We don't need more users with more power, we need more users. Where would the crat flag help this wiki?
I think the best idea for this wiki would be to grant all (active) sysops the crat flag. Furthermore, desysop/decrat the inactive users. This would help to clean up. Barras 19:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I did not even ask for this nomination, so therefore, how could it be considered powerhungry? Furthermore, there should always be at least two active bureaucrats so that we don't rely too much on just one user for all of the changes, and so that it doesn't cripple our ability to make bureaucratic decisions. If Brett were to just up and leave, we would have no active bureaucrats, which is not a good thing. There always needs to be at least two active bureaucrats to help prevent this from happening. The bureaucrat job has never appealed very much to me, but I am wiling to take on the responsibility because I see that it is needed at this point in time. I would never have thought about becoming a 'crat if I thought that it was not needed at this point in time. Razorflame 19:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the powerhungry wasn't really addressed to you (I guess you know what I mean on simplewiki). I personally see no reason for having another active crat. There isn't enough which needs to be done. It's (imo) just another flags which isn't set to really help to expand this wiki. As said above, perhabs we should think about granting all active sysops the crat flag. It wouldn't hurt on this small wiki. Anf furthermore desysop/decrat the inactive ones. So we wouldn't need to elect crats. Barras 20:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support having another bureaucrat since we don't have any other active ones at the moment. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support I am not too sure whether Razorflame is the best person for crat, but seeing that Brett is inactive, I'm ok with giving him the tools. Pmlineditor  Talk 15:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Inactive is imo like the other crat. Brett still seems to be available per mail. Barras 18:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Well anyway, I don't see any harm in getting another crat. Pmlineditor  Talk 07:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support More bureaucrats are needed. Razorflame is a good candidate for this position, considering he's among the most active admins here. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, 2 crats is best. Griffinofwales 20:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, another 'crat sounds like a good idea. Snake311 (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Multiple 'crats are never a bad thing. EVula // talk // 02:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose No need for another crat on a wiki this small. Don't think the candidate would be the best choice even if I did feel the need for another one. There are better candidates. -Djsasso (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, maturity and stability concerns. Has just retired, again, from the Wikipedia variant of Simple English. In March, he displayed exceptionally poor judgement with a post re. his disagreements with the project. It seems Razorflame likes to rant and run when he gets into disagreements, thereby creating maximum drama, rather than either discussing appropriately or quietly leaving. I was willing to believe it was all in the past, but the very recent retirement suggests those stability concerns are still relevant. And yes, maturity and judgement are relevant on other projects. For a position that requires clear judgement and sound stability, I don't believe Razorflame is right for this role. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    Can you show me any evidence of my ranting or raving alongside my very recent retirement? Sometimes, I just can't decide on what is best for me, however, alongside my very recent talk with Majorly via IRC, I have finally decided that Simple Wikipedia is not for me any longer. Sure, you may think that that is unstable, but I don't. I am just doing what I believe is best for me at this moment in time. Thank you for your concerns anyways. Razorflame 19:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    I think, that this "retired" and a few months later "unretired" isn't a good show for a future crat (it doesn't matter on which project). It just show us, that we perhabs elect (another) inactive crat. Barras (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    I have no intention of leaving this project anytime soon. I love this project and I will be staying with it for at least another year. Razorflame 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    Cool, a new one year crat and then new elections? Doesn't help really. Sorry, but are you really sure you are the right person for the job? If you can't decide whether to go or to stay, I think the same could happen here. Barras (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
    The same will not happen here because I have already decided that I am going to stay with this project no matter what happens. This time, I mean it. I am never going back to Simple Wikipedia, that I am sure of. Razorflame 15:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
    Didn't you say this the last time you left as well? Furthermore, you made a long (7 months) break from which you (some weeks, 6 weeks? dunno) returned. For this you are an unsure candidate for this job. Barras (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've mailed Brett right now about the RFB. He as the only crat should close it. Best Barras (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have set Razorflame's rights to bureaucrat.--Brett (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank the community for allowing me to become a bureaucrat here on the Simple English Wiktionary. I will do my best to show you guys that you made the right decision. Cheers, Razorflame 17:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


I'd like to request adminship on simple:wikt. The main reason is that there continue to be times (such as tonight) when blocks are needed and global sysops and local sysops are not active or acting, and spo steward intervention is needed. I think that this community knows that I'm trustworthy, and will be deligent and active as an admin (since when I am online I monitor cvn-sw on IRC). I will fully understand if the answer is a no. :) fr33kman t - c 02:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No reason to oppose, but I think you would be much more useful as a global sysop. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I think he hasn't really the global activity needed for this kind of tool. The problem I see here is that we decided against the "emergency sysops" here on wikt as global sysops are around. An other point is, that he will be a regular admin and I expect some more activity from a regular one on this project. Of course he's trusted and I know he won't abuse the tools, but a regular admin should be activ, imo (yes, I know I'm currently not the best example with my activity...). However, I don't really care and will see what the community thinks. Good luck anyway. Barras talk 14:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, how long are you actually on IRC? I rarely see you on (although I'm not on most of the day). If you actually check cvn-sw, shouldn't you have many edits cross-wiki? Griffinofwales (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support User is trusted and appears to have at least a rudimentary knowledge of our policies, which is really, in my mind, the only criteria for adminship. Activity, i don't care so much about because i know he checks RC frequently. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support§ stay (sic)! 09:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Not a user here, but (if my vote counts) support. Singlish speaker (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support --.snoopy. (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - no concerns, would make a great administrator. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Promoted - No opposes. Barras talk 14:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsuccessful nominations[change]

Razorflame (regaining of bits)[change]

As per my last request, I believe that I have proven beyond a doubt on this site that I can be trusted with the administrator tools and to use them correctly. Ever since my tenure on the English Wiktionary, I've been given real-life training in terms of being able to handle situations when they get out of control, as well as when to use the block tool and when not to. I believe that after 8 months, and through editing on this site here again, that I would hopefully be able to regain my sysop bit that I resigned over 10 months ago. Thanks, Razorflame 02:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose: You have very little activity on the site (since Feb. 1, you have edited on nine days). You seem to have returned just for adminship. You aren't active overall on simple projects. Just stop trying to get adminship. It's better for everyone if you just stop. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    While it is true that I haven't been active on the Simple projects, I assure you that I did not come back to this site just for adminship. I came back to this site to help expand the project, which is what I am planning on doing for some time now. I'm not trying to get adminship any longer. I am merely requesting for the rights that I resigned 10+ months ago to be restored now because I have had time to think things over and because I believe that I have become a better person over the past 10+ months. Those are my reasons for requesting adminship. Razorflame 02:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    You came back today, and you're requesting it immediately. Maybe that's something you missed in your lessons on enwikt, you don't come back to a wiki you've left after not getting adminship, and immediately request it again. Admins aren't needed on the wiki anyhow, and nobody, not you, not me, not the wiki, is going to benefit from you having the tools. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    I disagree. I think that the wiki will see a huge benefit from me having the tools back again because I will continue along where I left of with the tools, which will help to prevent any vandalism that occurs on this site. I know that I've been semi-active lately, but I've come back with the main purpose of helping to make the Simple English Wiktionary the best English-learners' dictionary that it can possibly be, and preventing vandalism is one of those things that needs to be done. Even if you don't think that any further administrators are needed on this site, what will happen if, one of these times, there is nobody online except me, and vandalism is occurring? Who would take care of the situation? Razorflame 02:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    Global sysop or steward, not a big deal. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    Not to mention a one-year block on enwikt, the wiki you edited after leaving here in a huff. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose As an editor of Simple Projects at heart; per common sense, and candidate clue levels. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry Razor. You just came back, and you were just blocked at en.wiktionary on July 5th. Getting Blocked, coming to another project and requesting admin just doesn't seem right.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)



Okay, I'm not as active on wikt as I (and all other simplewiki editors should be considering how commited we all are to the simple projects). Most of you know me and know I'm a sysop, crat and CU on the Simple English Wikipedia. I'm asking for the mop only so I can fight the x-wiki vandals and block them when needed. I understand that I do NOT fit the normal criteria, but I'm asking the community to ignore this and to grant me "emergency sysop". This is because many x-wiki vandals have been active lately and I'm often on IRC and able to help. I would not perform RFDs etc, merely anti-vandal work and x-wiki blocks. Thank you! fr33kman t - c 01:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As this will only be an emergency sysop right, he should only jump in if no local "normal" sysop is around. If no one objects, I'll grant him the flag in the next days. He also is one of the people watching the RC on IRC and so this could be helpful. -Barras talk 01:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I would only use this in an emergency if no other local sysop is active. I have no intention of using the mop in local community things (community blocks, bans, RFDs, deletions etc.) but only when I an emergency x-wiki need and no one else is around to help. fr33kman t - c 01:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as trusted user and likely to stay true to his word. I don't really think you need to limit yourself to a half-admin, though. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Experienced user on whom I have full trust. Definitely support. Pmlineditor  12:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
withdrawn: as granted flag under emergency sysop procedure. fr33kman t - c 22:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Razorflame (adminship)[change]

Hi there all. I was an administrator in the past, and I've had time to think it over and fix what needed to be fixed. People said that I was too hasty with my decisions and that I could be indecisive. I've fixed both of those problems now. I would therefore like to request the admin bit back on good terms. I believe that I did a good job as an administrator in the past, and I know that I can continue doing a good job in the future. Thank you. Razorflame 15:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose By requesting adminship now, you showed us that you are hasty again. My advice will be to wait for few months. Its just 14 days since you failed your RfA. Running RfAs at such short intervals will only reduce your chance of becoming an admin. That's just my opinion though. Pmlineditor  15:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not even 14 days since your last RfA. Someone who tries that hard to get the bit can't be a good sysop. Sorry, but not now. --Barras (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's been barely two weeks since your last RfA. Don't get me wrong - this is nothing personal and I much appreciate your good work creating entries here - but rerequesting adminship for the third time in less than a month, frankly, doesn't inspire much confidence in your judgement. My suggestion would be that you wait about two months before applying again. Running for adminship at such short intervals like you're doing now doesn't look good, and could ruin your chances of ever regaining the bit in the future. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you for the advice. I'm sorry to have done this. I will wait for a while before I re-request again. Sorry, Razorflame 17:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Hello there all. I would like to request the desysopping of Wenli. The last action made was in January of this year, so it has basically been a year (pretty much) since he last made an action. Therefore, I would like to request his desysop per Wiktionary:Desysop policy. Cheers, Razorflame 09:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - Over 2 months missing for one year. We have a policy. Let's wait till January. --Barras (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    What are the chances of this user coming back in two months if he's already been gone for ten? Razorflame 10:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    The chances are nearly zero. But on the other hand, why do we create policies then? To not use them? --Barras (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    No, to use them to a point. If the chances are nearly zero that a user will come back, then that user should be desysopped due to inactivity. What would the point be of waiting two more months if the user won't come back? Razorflame 10:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    Follow he policy is the point. Are we in rish to remove his tools. We defined inactive in our policy as 1 year. This isn't the case here. --Barras (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    No, we aren't in a rush to remove his tools. I just thought that it would be pointless to wait another two months when the inevitable would've happened as the end result. Razorflame 10:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I disagree with the desysoping of inactive administrators and the inactivity policy. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - Lacks a whole year. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • According to this, he is not eligible for deadminship until February 19 (now November 29, 2010) <--update per Wenli below.
    Until then, I oppose. Snake311 (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm still here...not really active but I still watch for vandalism and such. — Wenli (reply here) 07:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wenli's recent edit/action. Suggest a SNOW close. Pmlineditor  07:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Closed per SNOW. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Razorflame -Regaining of bits[change]

Hello there all. I would like to rerequest my sysop bit back. Thanks, Razorflame 22:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Lol, no. Oppose. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral/Weak oppose per recent behaviour, which, with all due respect, I consider to be somewhat erratic. Razor, soon after starting discussions for how to improve this project, proposed closure of SEWT on Meta, then requested the proposal be deleted. After that, resigned sysop and 'crat bits, and almost immediately afterward asked the stewards for them back - which was refused. It's nothing personal, Razor, and I really do appreciate your many contributions to SEWT, they have helped the project immensely - but I'm afraid I no longer have much confidence in your judgement. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, but too many rash and immature decisions. Like TDV, I appreciate your contributions to this project, but I don't think I trust you with the tools at the moment. You tend to lose your cool quickly; this is something I hope you will change so that I can support a future request. Regards, Pmlineditor  16:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    I acknowledge everything that everyone has said, and I will have to show you that I will be around in the long run and that I won't make any more rash decisions before posting another RfA. Thank you for raising the concerns about me being a sysop. I withdraw the request. Razorflame 16:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


Hello there all. As per the permissions request, they have said that I need to ask the community again to regain my bits, so I would like to request from the community that I regain my bits that I gave up in good faith. Thank you, Razorflame 18:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  • From me a no. Per what I said here. You are not someone who really knows how the system works. You made this request on meta in rush, you requested the closure of this wiki and you will be a crat or admin on this wiki? You stated in your RfB that you will be here for at least the next year and what have you done? Not even a few months. Even if you have troubles on enwikt or somewhere else, if you make decissions in rush, I can not support you for adminship or cratship. At all per my reasons on all your elections. (simpleWT RfB, simpleWP RfA, meta RFA). I still just think the change is high that you step down from admin/cratship in a few months again. I can't trust you in this way. Sorry, but no. --Barras (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't even regain my admin bit that I've had since February of this year, even after all the hard work I've done for this Wiktionary? Razorflame 19:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This request is in the crat tool section, not admin section. --Barras (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is for the regaining of bot tools, so I just put it here because it was a request to regain them both. Razorflame 19:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Clarify: Absolutly no to crat and neutral to admin (at least atm for the last). --Barras (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Result: User withdrew


Hello all. I am Tiptoety. I am requesting the sysop tools so that I can better my response to cross-wiki vandalism, import needed templates and pages, and to assist in blocking open proxies (I currently block between 10 and 30 a day). I am currently an administrator at the English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Simple Wikiquote, am a member of the foundations OTRS team, and have rollback on a number of other projects. I am aware that this is not a busy wiki, and as such does not require many more administrators, but as I stated before I feel the activities I will partake in are needed here, and currently I do not see other administrators doing them. Thank you, Tiptoety (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose Nope. Wikiquote and Wikibooks was ok, but not here. We've got enough admins and as such I don't think that being an admin is not the only way by which one can assist a wiki. Sorry, Tiptoety, but I must oppose. Please make sufficient number of edits before returning. Pmlineditor  07:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose We can never have too many admins, and I trust this user, but here we usually require a ~few weeks~ experience. For the importing, I would support giving this user the import flag. And for the proxy blocking, feel free to create a user subpage or project page listing proxies. Myself and other admins will block them. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I will just wait for the global sysop flag to be enacted. Thanks, Tiptoety (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)