Meta:Requests for adminship/Barras

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

Barras edit

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

I'd like to nominate Barras for adminship. He's fairly active and occasionally tags things for deletion, reverts vandalism etc. Not new to Wikimedia projects. Should be ok with admin tools. Majorly talk 18:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Majorly, for your nomination. I glady accept it. I hope that I can help with the tools. Best Regards, Barras 18:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Trusted and helpful user, should do fine with the extra tools here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wouldn't abuse the tools. -Djsasso 19:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - has my full trust. Huib talk 20:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes. PeterSymonds 21:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Maximillion Pegasus 00:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not sure about this users' judgement. Razorflame 00:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment. I think this is the revenge for this or this (declining of a quick deletion request by Razorflame yesterday and the other 2 declinings). Perhabs Razorflame thinks that declining a qd is a bad judgement, but well... there are much more articles like this example on simplewiki. Imo delete all or none and not only the 3 three newest. Kind regards Barras 14:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it was not a revenge vote for that incident. I am voting because I am not sure that your judgement is sound, which is a valid reason for opposition. Best regards, Razorflame 16:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it so, can you please give me an example where I was wrong with my judgement? It would be kind. So I can see what I have to improve. Thanks Barras 16:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - As you know well, I thought that declining those tags was a bad idea, but there was disagreement all round. If he thinks you have bad judgement there, he thinks that. Majorly talk 16:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Sufficiently clue-full, won't abuse the tools and already fairly active around meta.Jamesofur 01:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support >:| Was going to nom him. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Kanonkas 09:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.snoopy. ✉ 10:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom and per working with this user. --Dferg 21:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Seha 11:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support —DerHexer (Talk) 19:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 09:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support wanns'n wuonnersch owerseid gahm, werds schie net schodn... --თოგო ^(D) 12:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sure. Wutsje 13:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Majorly. MBisanz ^talk 14:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aude 03:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sounds good. Cirt (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Barras, although your word "revenge" disappointed me a little, I still expect you to be a trusted admin here. --Kanjy 16:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting closed, user promoted. --FiliP ██ 21:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you all who participated here. Barras (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]