Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/Lymantria
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Closed as successful--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vote
RfP scheduled to end at 8 June 2017 19:18 (UTC)
- Lymantria (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)
Dear colleagues,
I would like to nominate Lymantria for bureaucrat. Lymantria is an active member of our community since 2013. He has made 850.000 edits and 40.000 admin actions (2014-). As you can see from his contributions he has a wide range of experience, is thoughtful, friendly, and active. Lymantria has contributed to Wikimedia projects for 10 years, and has over a million global edits. He is admin (2008-) and former bureaucrat (2010-2013) [1] on the Dutch Wikipedia, and admin on Wikimedia Commons (2011-).
The last bureaucrat to step down was Bene* in september 2016 and we currently have 2 bureaucrats. I believe Lymantria would make a great addition to this team. I have worked with Lymantria for nearly 10 years now, and can say he is a pleasure to work with. As such, I would like to recommend Lymantria as bureaucrat for your consideration.
Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Taketa, for your kind words. I accept the nomination. Lymantria (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Votes
[edit]- Support - As nominator - Taketa (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Edoderoo (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC) - I know Lymantria from nl-wiki, he will indeed be a good addition![reply]
- Support --Succu (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support MisterSynergy (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Rschen7754 00:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support eurodyne (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Brya (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Epìdosis 10:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A bureaucrat is definitely needed and I cannot see any reason to oppose --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support thanks for being willing to help! ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ChristianKl (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, The work is very good. MechQuester (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - outstanding contributor - Jura1 20:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - we need active bureaucrats and possibly admins. I don't have a reason to vote against. d1g (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support − Pintoch (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Mahir256 (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - PKM (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support If there's a will, I'm happy to support this. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Nikki (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, not that my vote changes things. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Fills a need here. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Stöder -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --ValterVB (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Nikosguard talk 08:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Of course. I'm glad I'm still on time. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 18:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --NatigKrolik (contributions • talk) 10:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Jc86035 (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support We should have more than just two bureaucrats.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Rzuwig► 19:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]- ...