Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jeronimo

Jeronimo

Final (24/0/1) extened to 22:36, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC), but may be concluded earlier if candidate accepts or rejects before then.

This is a bit of an obvious one. Clearly a conscientious and responsible editor. I learned he was an admin in the distant past, but did not maintain it in order to focus on article writing. He has mentioned he would not mind helping with admin tasks again. - Taxman 22:37, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Candidate Jeronimo has not accepted this nomination. I will leave this up for another 24 hours to give him/her an opportunity to accept or reject. If no acceptance, the user cannot be promoted and this nomination must be terminated. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I will accept my nomination. I had no idea I had to accept this here; Taxman asked me if I could nominate me on his/mine talk page and I answered there. But here it is. Jeronimo 10:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the old nomination? Andre (talk) 22:52, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

[1]

Support

1. Taxman (presumably - Andre (talk) )
2. uc 22:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Absolutely support - he's a great editor who absolutely deserves to be an admin. →Raul654 23:24, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
4. There should hardly be a need for a vote to reinstate an adminship that has been voluntarily dropped, especially not when the editor has remained up-to-date with policies. David Remahl 23:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
5. Right. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:27, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
6. Lst27 (talk) 01:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 02:07, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
8. Paul August 03:46, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
9. Andre (talk) 12:40, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
10. Rubber stamp this one in. Shane King 12:56, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
11. Sietse 13:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
12. Strong support. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
13. Support. ugen64 16:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
14. Fire Star 16:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    Slam dunk and all that. :) func(talk) 20:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

15. Strong support [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 01:27, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
16. Mark¹ 05:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
17. Support Tuf-Kat 11:28, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
18. Support. Hard to find a lower-risk nomination than a former admin. Antandrus 03:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
19. Support. 172 05:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
20. Support. Does great work around WP:FAC Filiocht 10:05, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
21. JFW | T@lk 15:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
22. Support. Great work on explaining is view on WP:FAC. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:00, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
23. Jeronimo! --Slowking Man 02:28, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
24. I while ago, I nominated B-29 Superfortress on the FAC. Several users gave brief statements of support, but Jeronimo gave me 25-line list of nine items he thought should be fixed. I was impressed. •→Iñgólemo←• 03:39, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Um... Jeronimo has made no comments or statements on this vote whatsoever. This concerns me somewhat. I will re-add my support if Jeronimo will address Geogre's question below.

Comments

• Arrived in January 2002 and has made over 7000 edits. uc

• This user voluntarily dropped his sysop status. Is there a need for a vote? →Raul654 07:19, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

• I would say it's a good idea just to make sure that opinion is still supportive. After all, there is always a reason why they dropped out in the first place. There's no apparent need to let this nomo run it's full course, though, and I support calling this one early. --BesigedB 07:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I have a question: Jeronimo, in your own words, can you explain why you lapsed out of admin status? I ask because one can write articles while being an admin, so there is something that just seems insufficient about that rationale, which was offered by Taxman. You do fantastic work, and this isn't meant to be a tripping or hostile question, but I had thought you'd have addressed the subject in you responses or comments somewhere. It's just kind of the elephant in the room: someone's got to ask, and it might as well be me. Geogre 16:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My characterization of it is certainly not necessarily his. You can check my talk page for the more accurate version. - Taxman 00:31, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Taxman, I'll do that. I just thought it would be a good thing for consideration, and I was only wondering. Lapsing admin rare enough, at least these days, that it seems interesting. Geogre 15:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As Taxman pointed out, you can read my comment on his talk page. I think that is sufficient, but if you'd like more info, let me know. Jeronimo 11:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)