Vicipedia:Voteria

De Vicipedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
ArcivoReplacement filing cabinet.svg

Pf copia esta en la sesion conveninte.

==  [[nom]] ==
=== Pro ===
*:
=== Contra ===
*:
* <big>'''Resulta'''</big> —     



Proposa per dona la rol de "administrator" a Jorj Usor:Cgboeree[edita la fonte]

Pro[edita la fonte]

Contra[edita la fonte]

  • Resulta — La proposa es asetada.

Proposa per ce Istoria de la lingua catalan deveni un article bon[edita la fonte]

Pro[edita la fonte]

Contra[edita la fonte]

Comentas[edita la fonte]

Resulta

  • 3-0: La article ia es marcada como article bon.


Proposa per ce Provinse Soria deveni un article bon[edita la fonte]

Pro[edita la fonte]

Contra[edita la fonte]

  • Resulta

2-0. La article es marcada como bon.

Proposa per ce Beliz deveni un article bon[edita la fonte]

Pro[edita la fonte]

Contra[edita la fonte]

Comentas[edita la fonte]

Resulta

Proposa per dona la rol de "administrator" a Usor:Chabi[edita la fonte]

Started on January 8, 2021.

Pro[edita la fonte]

  1. MarcoAurelio (discute) 22:10, 10 janero 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contra[edita la fonte]

Resulta[edita la fonte]

Proposa per dona la rol de "administrator" a Usor:Caro de Segeda[edita la fonte]

Started on 27 July 2022.

Pro[edita la fonte]

  1. --Caro de Segeda (discute) 06:21, 20 julio 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Sajmĉjo (discute) 09:26, 20 julio 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Krissie (discute) 10:45, 20 julio 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. --Jumpy01 (discute) 21:40, 22 julio 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contra[edita la fonte]

  1. Oppose. I find it concerning for an administrator candidate to create a promotional article at any wiki. [1] is quite concerning. --Martin Urbanec (discute) 19:58, 21 julio 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. - Oppose - Per Martin Urbanec. --Daniuu (discute) 14:04, 27 julio 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. opppose for the reasons I outlined on Meta, specifically the deceptive use of multiple accounts to promote himself. Praxidicae (discute) 15:31, 27 julio 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comenta[edita la fonte]

  • (Sorry for English) Not being an active member of this community I don't know if my vote is useful for the improvement of the community so I'll just leave a comment for now. I'm always pleased to see an inactive community that choose a sysop to better manage and improve it. But I don't like the motivation behind this application, for the sole purpose of reverting a GS action apparently, also because the user was not transparent globally. From the beginning, in fact, it should have been specified that we were talking about an autobiography. Instead, many projects were asked to translate it without specifying it. If the page wants to be restored by the community, there is no problem doing it for me, but those opinions should be transparent and not motivated by anything else. Furthermore, as mentioned, the campaigns are frowned upon by me. I know that the community is very small and there are no active users, but I also applied for an Italian project without active users, I could have contacted them privately and asked them to vote for me, but for transparency of course I didn't and get a temporary flag without any vote. All users should remember that we are here to collaborate together and to do only the good of the projects! If we talk about the fact that there is a sock that has also evaded the block on a project... well, I don't think it's a behavior appropriate to my idea of a user with advanced rights, and despite being asked several times the user never answered this! Best --Superpes15 (discute) 09:22, 22 julio 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was very clear and transparent about my intentions, please read here. If you just restore the article, I just delete the proposal, because that is the main point of this: Praxidicae deleted the article of an important member of the Elefen community, and after the community asked her to restore it, she still doesn't do it. That shows her clear disrispect for this Wikipedia and the people who work and worked here.
    I am not coming back again to the discussion, and I already made clear that I find it fair for the article to be deleted from most of the Wikipedias it appears at, but precisely here and in other Wikipedias, the article is relevant. just applying the same rule for all Wikipedias doesn't work and it shoulnd't be done. Caro de Segeda (discute) 12:05, 22 julio 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resulta[edita la fonte]