I would like to nominate Captain Nemo for adminship. They have been with us for 5 years, and undertook their first edit on Author:Arthur Conan Doyle, so straight in to the deep end. Nearly 40k edits, doing plenty of maintenance work in that time, and as I noticed a few days ago, unable to clean up after some excellent maintenance. If you look at Captain Nemo's contributions you will see an extensive cross-namespace set of contributions. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support - @Captain Nemo: please enable the "email this user" function in your Preferences>>User profile>>Email options. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support — Agree with Billinghurst's assessment; a solid contributor and excellent when it comes maintenance practices. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support - I see nothing in this editor's history that would disqualify them from wielding the mop. BD2412 T 21:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support— Mpaa (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support— Ineuw talk 17:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hesperian 01:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose -- No significant activity this year. Outlier59 (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep — Ineuw talk 01:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep no reason not to, though I would like to see more activity — billinghurst sDrewth 06:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose for long inactivity and many missing edit summaries.--Jusjih (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose solely on the ground of inactivity per WS:AP. No problems from my perspective with regaining the tools upon return. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep — Ineuw talk 05:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose solely for inactivity. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Reverted self. There has been an error here.
- According to our Wikisource:Restricted access policy#restricted access policy,
- "An 'inactive administrator' is one who has not edited during the past six months and has nmore than 50 edits during the last year."
- Captain Nemo may not have edited since November 2015, but they made around five thousand edits in the months preceding, and therefore they are not inactive under our policy.
- Whoever started this discussion at the start of the month has erred in listing Captain Nemo as inactive. The vote has been held under a misapprehension. As an active administrator, Captain Nemo cannot be removed unless a vote of confidence is called. No such vote of confidence was called, though the criteria for one was met... but again, under a misapprehension. What a mess.
- I am going to close this without an outcome, and relist it.
- Hesperian 04:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose A sensible reaction, and in response may I register my opposition to their continuance. You cannot win them all. AuFCL (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Relisted from last month. Captain Nemo is active under our restricted access policy, not inactive. Hesperian 04:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support for now and hopefully they return. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as per August comments — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: I have also pinged Captain Nemo about this discussion on his Wikipedia talk page. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep — Ineuw talk 02:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose for long inactivity and many missing edit summaries.--Jusjih (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)