Wiktionary:Votes/2017-02/Richardb for de-admin

Richardb for de-admin
Voting on: Removing User:Richardb's adminship. No activity since 2013.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Quadcont (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If anyone has some problem with a permabanned user having created a vote (and they shouldn't), I officially supplant Quadcont as this vote's sponsor. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] User talk:Richardb

Support

 * 1) . Correction on the activity level of said user- late 2012, not 2013. For another thing, the edit before that was made in mid 2010, and the one before that in late 2009. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  per my comments at WT:Votes/2017-01/Dominic for de-admin. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to send him an email, but I realised that he doesn't even have that function enabled! No Wiktionary admin should be impossible to contact, so that is an extra and especially damning reason to remove the admin bit. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * : Last admin action is from 1 December 2009, more than 5 years go, per Special:Log/Richardb. The magic keyword gives 98 admins, and therefore, there is no risk that removing admin rights creates unhealthy concentration of power. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Droigheann (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're voting twice now, you have already voted as # 3. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , though to be fair, it hasn't actually been since he was active. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) .  I have emailed with RichardB in the past, but the email that he used then (2005/6) is no longer active. - TheDaveRoss 14:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  (Should the vote be cancelled since the creator is a now-permablocked Wonderfool? I've seen his support/oppose vote choices cancelled for that reason, anyway.) Equinox ◑ 22:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that should invalidate the vote once it's started, as long as the vote contributes something helpful (or harmless, at least). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Decision
He's out of adminhood. So I closed the vote early...--G23r0f0i (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As you know, you can't close votes... but yeah, this is a foregone conclusion and can be closed in a few hours. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, technically if 6 people rush in and vote "oppose" in the next 2 hours and a half, Richardb will keep his admin bit! ;) I'm just kidding though. It's true that this is a foregone conclusion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * To be legalistic about it, the vote now officially passes unanimously., we need a 'crat. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. —Stephen (Talk) 03:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)