Meta:Requests for adminship/Axpde

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Axpde

• Axpde (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Scheduled to end: 20 June, 14:45 UTC

Hello people! I'd like to present Axpde for adminship here on meta. He's already an experienced user here at meta and also an admin on commons. Axpde holds also the global admin and rollback rights and helps with those rights to fight vandalism. On meta, he would surely make good use of the tools and would be a good assist to our current team. I hope that you agree with me and vote for him. Good luck! -Barras 14:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination, I gladly accept it :) axp_de^Hello! 14:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Support - As nom. -Barras 14:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support mickit 15:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support I was pretty sure you were already sysop on meta. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 15:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --WizardOfOz ^talk 15:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Why not? Theo10011 15:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral. I really don't see a need for the tools here. Almost no countervandalism work, and some recent incorrect speedy delete taggings ([1]). Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

  my cross wiki activities, User:Staeiou created a lot of templates and redirects (see Special:Contributions/Staeiou), all his templates are CRVs - C'n'P of copyrighted templates (CC 3.0) taken from en-WP instead of importing correctly with history - and several redirects, well, IMHO we don't need those abbreviations of templates, Courcelles had a different opinion, no problem. axp_de^Hello! 12:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

  This doesn't look as crosswiki anti-vandalism work to me, and I doubt if it falls in the GS scope. However, I've still supported because I trust that the user won't make a mess here. Savh^ñ 08:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  Has been a bad idee (German: „Schnappsidee”). axp_de^Hello! 20:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  P.S.: Thank you :) axp_de^Hello! 20:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Has many deleted contribs and I'm sure he would use the tool correctly. Trijnstel 18:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support trusted and active, so why not? Grunny (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Matanya 23:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Neutral many bad experiences with this user's ability to use common sense. --თოგო ^(D) 09:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

  Well, I could say the same about you. But I learned and made progress. And I am deeply disappointed in your edit comment. axp_de^Hello! 12:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

  @Thogo: Could you cite some instances please? It would be helpful for those who comment in this request. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

  No, I won't. Please decide for yourself whether you trust him. And I can understand those who do. Axpde is really not a bad guy, it's just that I have had some experiences with him which completely destroyed my trust in him. But that's my personal opinion others don't need to follow. @Axpde, sorry for the edit comment, that was really not meant personally, I was just so surprised to see you here. ;) --თოგო ^(D) 10:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Sure fr33kman 01:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose: very little activity here, no need for the tools. Nemo 06:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Just saying that I haven't had more edits or deleted edits than Axpde when I was elected an admin here... Activity comes fairly often with the tools then as this makes things easier. Best, -Barras 06:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support, why not? - Hoo man (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Per Barras' nom. :) The Helpful One 15:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 23:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support. I see no strong reason for opposing.” T_ele^s (T_{alk @ C S}) 05:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Savh^ñ 08:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support thanks for help Mardetanha ^talk 05:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Successful. There is a consensus after a period of 7 days. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 13:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)