Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2018-01/User:Nloveladyallen for admin

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User:Nloveladyallen for admin[edit]

Nomination: I hereby nominate Nloveladyallen (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. Won WT:FUN and hasn't pissed anyone off.

Schedule:

Acceptance: The current belief seems to be that I'm WF. I promise I'm not, not that anyone will/should take my word for it. There are better reasons to not admin me, like that I've only been editing in earnest for a few months. But what the hell, I'll accept and see what happens.

  • Languages: en, es-2
  • Timezone: UTC-5/4 (EST/EDT)
Nloveladyallen (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

Support User seems trustworthy, and we're in sore need of admins. --Rerum scriptor (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But such easy admining shall not generalize. This is gambling – we shall not just lay bets but be positively certain that someone is not Wonderfool. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 22:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Switched my vote to abstain. --Rerum scriptor (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support DTLHS (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose - I have always assumed that he is the latest WF incarnation. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I can understand why someone would think that. But this guy does Greek and edits on a mobile, both very un-Wonderfoolish behaviours --Gente como tú (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose both look like Wonderfool. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 15:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I am not willing to throw this person under the WF bus, however they should get more experience before becoming an admin. - TheDaveRoss 14:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Not enough edits. For that matter, why should one take seriously a nomination by a newcomer (Gente como tú) editing only since last month and without very many edits. One doesn't need to resolve identity issues in this case. DCDuring (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @DCDuring: That's not a newcomer, it's WF. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 17:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to a username that does not explicitly succeed a previous user name. Why bother with the WF question? DCDuring (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Obviously an unknown quantity, and it's a very cheeky nomination. DonnanZ (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Less than 200 edits. Of course it's nothing against the user him/herself, but when I look at an admin nomination and have never seen this username before until now, that's definitely not a good sign. @User:Gente como tú, you can't just nominate people for adminship based on some kind of dare or winning some game or something, as you suggested on the user's talk page. The user has to have extensive experience, good standing in the community, and undoubtful trust. Like I said, I don't really know the user that well, but the grounds for this nomination are weaker than any I've ever seen here. With this few edits a user really should not be an admin. To conclude, adminship IMO should come to users who've been here for a long enough time to say they're experienced, edited quite a lot in that time frame, and most importantly have good and trustworthy stands in the community. The votes above don't indicate that this user can be trusted so well, at least yet. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as whether or not I think it's Wonderfool, I don't have an opinion. However, this is all-the-more reason to edit here longer. A few people used to think I might be WF, but after editing here longer that's not something I hear anymore. The differences between a user who creates sockpuppets regularly and a different editor entirely are easier to establish over a longer period of time. And I'm saying this assuming the nominated user is not WF, which I'm not even trying to say with any confirmation. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Per TheDaveRoss, DCDuring and PseudoSkull; too few edits, though the quality is promising. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. I have made far more contributions than this user, yet I don't think it's enough (frequency-wise) for me to be an admin. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently I have made more than 100,000 edits, but I'm not admin material. DonnanZ (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose because it's too early. User seems good and I can imagine supporting this at some future time when they have more work under their belt. Equinox ◑ 00:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose – I had no idea that WT:Christmas Competition 2017 was about adminship... 😉 — Eru·tuon 01:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose mellohi! (僕の乖離) 16:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose --Victar (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Too late, mate. The vote has finished. DonnanZ (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain[edit]

  1. Abstain Obviously not WF, he can't keep an account for three years. But there's no real reason for the user to be adminned. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 17:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     @AryamanA what is so obvious about it? He is nominated by Wonderfool, has mainly done Spanish edits, and now he answers on this page like he knows who “WF” is, which is much archive reading for so few edits, and he revisits his old entries as in diff which he has back in 2006 or so nominated for the Word of the Day. That is Wonderfool. Don’t you expect some new guises? Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 22:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't trolled through any archives to find out who Wonderfool is. He was mentioned to me in a thread in the Christmas competition. As for my edit on fuck, that's hardly an obscure enough word to make a connection IMO. Nloveladyallen (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nloveladyallen: Here ya go. He's a very prolific editor who deleted the main page a while ago and has been switching accounts every few months since. WF has a history of self-nominations (indeed, the nominator and the one supporter seem to both be WF), but he also nominates other users from time to time. I don't think you're WF but I still think adminship can wait. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 00:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean he likes to nominate people who seem to look like him but aren’t (which he knows as he is not them)? That of course is also a point. If one shall be admin, it is imperative to look different from him, I infer – however unpleasant it is to have someone else as a yardstick. About Rerum scriptor, I mostly tend to think that he is one of those weird French people. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 00:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain A bit soon. --Rerum scriptor (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain Just not familiar enough with this user to make a comprehensive determination Leasnam (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decision[edit]

Fails 1–12–3. This was stupidly pointless, and if I had been online when it happened, I would've blocked WF before we had to waste our time on it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2018-01/User:Nloveladyallen_for_admin&oldid=48393100"