The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unsuccessful. Unfortunately, this has been open for too long. The candidate has not been active in three months. No response to recent questions. Denomination would be very welcome when candidate returns. --Green Giant (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@SVTCobra:, What in your opinion makes a contributor a good candidate for bureaucratship? Interested to know your insight, though I have already placed my vote. Thank you! --Gryllida (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@SVTCobra:Comment Has been radio silent for some time now. Not sure what's up.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@SVTCobra:Comment So badly want to support, but hasn't made a single edit in 90 days, so, doing that would be a tough decision to make.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment While I still have my sincere trust in the candidate's ability and commitment, I think that it would be interesting to somehow check that the candidate is still available, and has commitment, before altering the privs. --Gryllida (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
If no decent response from user in next 12 hours, I will take action on this nomination.--Bddpaux (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - Last edit was September 2020 (i.e. last year). Giving an inactive admin a bureaucratship is a huge risk to (this) small project, especially security-wise (see WN:PEP). --George Ho (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose I've made multiple attempts to rouse user from their deep slumber.....to no effect. --Bddpaux (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.