Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2007-08/User:Neskaya for admin

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2007-08/User:Neskaya for admin. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2007-08/User:Neskaya for admin, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2007-08/User:Neskaya for admin in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2007-08/User:Neskaya for admin you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2007-08/User:Neskaya for admin will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/sy-2007-08/User:Neskaya for admin, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

User:Neskaya for admin

  • Vote ends: 11 September 2007 23:59 UTC
  • Vote started: 28 August 2007 23:59 UTC

Support

  1. Support Dvortygirl 01:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support —RuakhTALK 02:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Alhen 02:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Support DAVilla 04:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Like, duh!
  4. Support Connel MacKenzie 05:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Dmcdevit·t 05:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Robert Ullmann 06:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support *Cremepuff222* 07:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Werdna 07:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Thryduulf 09:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Wikihermit 01:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Note that this account has fewer than 50 edits, all in the user space before this vote. DAVilla 13:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Nenolod 05:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC) - while I'm not very much a wiktionary participant, so my vote is probably not very useful, User:Neskaya has made major contributions to other Wikis and could be an effective admin.
    Note that this new account is not eligible to vote. DAVilla 13:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Versageek 15:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Rod (A. Smith) 16:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Obviously here to help. Rod (A. Smith) 16:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support SemperBlotto 16:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support ArielGlenn 17:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC) While I agree that the reversion and initial discussion with User:Doremítzwr was inappropriate, I am now convinced that User:Neskaya has learned from that experience how *not* to de-escalate conflict as a sysop. ArielGlenn 17:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support GerardM 06:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    Support Neskaya talk 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC) As there is a line somewhere above that says the nominee can certainly vote – I had been refraining from voting because I didn't quite think I was supposed to. --Neskaya talk 17:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    Voting for yourself is allowed, but it's unnecessary. Some might ignore it, some think it's perfectly acceptable, and some see it as faux pas. DAVilla 02:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support --Cometstyles 22:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    Note that this account had only one edit, to the user page, before voting. DAVilla 13:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support —Steptrip 01:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support ―Tohru 01:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose DAVilla 05:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC) I am astonished this (newly registered though experienced) user would revert this edit despite all the changes, over spacing that she admits is inconsequential. DAVilla 05:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    I also after my actions admitted that they were most likely the wrong way to react, and have apologized to the user in question. I understand fully where you are coming from and appreciate that you explained your oppose vote. Neskaya talk 05:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I saw that, and to be clear, I do not mean to associate you with any of the other events that resulted from that discussion. DAVilla 06:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Her instinct and reaction was exactly right: the substantive change was adding Antarctican as a derived term, which the troll had defined as a noun: "native of Antarctica" ... more of the usual idiocy (humour?) from that editor. (Deleted and replaced with the adjective entry.) Robert Ullmann 06:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    What the heck? The bulk of the edit was cleanup, and the one substantive edit was correct — Antarctican is a derived term. (I'm not sure about the definition — certainly if I were to refer to a hypothetical native of Antarctica I'd say "Antarctican", much as I refer to unicorns as "unicorns" and ancient Roman vomit-rooms as "vomitoria", but I don't know whether enough people have ever mentioned hypothetical natives of Antarctica for that sense to pass RFV — but first of all, that's irrelevant as concerns the discussion of Antarctica, and second of all, that wasn't the reasoning she gave. The reasoning she gave was that in a large edit that improved the article significantly but also included some no-ops of the same type that AutoFormat is so fond of, there was one no-op that bugged her. I don't think this one event is enough to disqualify her from becoming a sysop, mind, but it does no one any good to pretend that she behaved correctly.) —RuakhTALK 06:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    On the other hand, commenting on the roll-back by contacting the user does help to counter-balance a decision that may have been incorrect. DAVilla 06:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Well that explains Doremítzwr's block, I guess. DAVilla 06:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Reinstating my opposition. I do think Neskaya would make a great admin. Besides being polite, she seems like a great recruiter, and that's not a negative by any means! I just feel like it's still too early. DAVilla 13:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Widsith 16:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry, she seems generally pretty awesome but the way the dispute at Antarctica was handled isn't ideal behaviour for an admin.
  3. Oppose H. (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC) I think she is still a bit too inexperienced.

Abstain

  • Abstain DAVilla 06:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry for changing my mind so much today. I know this user is not new, but being newly registered the record is too short for me to judge her one way or the other, although it seems she is closer to some long-term members here. I would personally be more comfortable if this nomination were postponed for a few months more. DAVilla 06:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Abstain. I consider this user a friend and really hope she won't be hurt or offended by this change of vote … but I really don't like the timing of this vote, coming as it does right on the heels of a big stupid argument she started that got another editor blocked for long enough that he can't participate in this discussion or vote. (I don't think Dvortygirl was even aware of that argument, so it's just a coincidence, but an unfortunate one.) Also, I'm concerned that her definition of "apologize" (in her comment above) is far too weak for my liking — we all screw up, some of us (yo) quite often, and it's essential to be able to put forth a real apology, none of this "I admit I may have been in the wrong initially" stuff (emphasis in original) — but yeah, the main reason is the timing thing I just mentioned. —RuakhTALK 06:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    I did actually email a longer apology to Doremítzwr. No worries, Ruakh. I totally understand your issue with when/how this vote ended came to be. --Neskaya talk 06:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, sorry! I should have known better than to think that was what you were referring to! —RuakhTALK 07:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Don't worry about it. I generally prefer semi-private modes of communication for most things, although I appreciate the transparency of talk pages and whatnot. Sending an email always gives a lot more time to think about actions, to think about what was and was not simply לשון הרע in what I was saying and in my thoughts at the time.. --Neskaya talk 08:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. Abstain Jeffqyzt 14:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC) ...based on brevity of edit history. What's there seems good.
  2. Abstain EncycloPetey 00:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC) I would need to see more discussion on Wiktionary itself and edit histories to make a decision. Participation on the IRC is cool, but it leaves no permanent benefit to Wiktionary, and for those of us who pop in there only occasionally, we have no basis for knowing the personality, opinions, or skill without more evidence to examine. --EncycloPetey 00:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Decision

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia