Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Barliner 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Successful. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Barliner

Barliner (talk · contribs · count)
RfA of Barliner
Previous RfAs: 1 2
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted
Last comment by: ShakespeareFan00.

My de-adminishiping was the natural result of a one year absence, caused by extended illness. As that was over a year ago and as I have returned to SWP and hope to have made a positive impact in the months since my return, and I hope fellow wikipedians will entrust me with the admion tools to enable me to make a better impact. Bärliner 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

self-nomination Bärliner 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Support

  1. Was a good admin before, will be a good admin again.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Previously had the tools and did not lose them controversially. As user's work is good, I see no problem with restoring them. Kansan (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. seen actively around. Savh·Tell me 17:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Good admin before, very active, so why not? Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Goblin 19:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds!
  6. wiooiw (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Grunny (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Not a problem for me..but can't he just ask them back? Griffinofwales (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Pretty active and does a good job on wiki. - (>ಠ_ಠ)>The King<(^.^<) (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Sure.-- Tdxiang 06:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. I thought about a nom for you, but since I'm currently not at home, I forhot doing it. -Barras (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. Full support - --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. See no reason not to Purplebackpack89 22:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. --Yottie =talk= 22:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. Sure. sonia♫ 23:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. Barliner was an excellent admin before and I'm sure he'll due just as great this time. Exert 03:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. Fairly active. -- Mentifisto 18:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Cool with me. --@jersey+ 22:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. Yep. I was just looking in recent changes and saw that he was making useful edits. It couldn't hurt to have another good faith edit admin on here, could it? I know it won't. Support Loudclaw (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Support I don't see any problems. Alpha Quadrant talk 02:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. Strong support Active and positive contributer... SPQR 20:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. Support an amazing admin. Novice7 (talk · contribs) 04:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. Yes, certainly. —Clementina talk 05:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. I love self nominations. And, as a bonus, the candidate will make a great admin :) Ajraddatz (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. Support Of course. --Bsadowski1 05:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. Support. Welcome back! Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  28. Support A user who is kind, respected, and was once an admin, and can be fully trusted with the tools. ♥ingly, Bella tête-à-tête 08:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose


Comments

He lost them because of a year away. So don't count this as a second vote, but as an explanation for my vote. He should have gotten them back when he asked, but like everyone else he has to be supported. I wouldn't be but he should be. I looked at his contributions. He's a good editor. Loudclaw (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a rule allowing an admin to get the tools back on request, but the potential for changes to tools, guidelines, policies etc means one should go through the RfA procedure to show competence and worthiness. Bärliner 12:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
We actually changed the requirements, current policy now makes it a requirement to run a new RFA after being desysopped for inactivity. fr33kman 15:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.