Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2021-02/User:PUC for admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate PUC (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. PUC has been a great contributor to our site, and he would make a great administrator. The user also asked that I mention his last vote for adminship and the fact that he created his last alt account six months ago.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 15:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Vote created: Imetsia (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Acceptance: I accept. As said on my talkpage, I do a bit of vandalism reversion and the admin tools would come in handy in that respect.

• Languages: fr, en-3, ru-2
• Timezone: UTC+1

PUC – 23:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Support as nominator. Imetsia (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
2. Support --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Equinox ◑ 05:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
4. Support he is not as bad as presented, and we know him so long that we are sure about what we get. That somebody is a lecher or bacchant is kind of not a reason for him not to be admin. Fay Freak (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
5. Support, I've never had any issues with PUC and I recall only pleasant interactions. I agree that some issues that have been raised are concerning. However, I believe that people can mature into reliable admins. PUC is undeniably a valuable contributor and we always have the option to remove adminship if it's abused. PUC will have the entire community's eyes on them. @PUC, please don't take our trust for granted. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
6. Support, though I wish there would have been fewer alt accounts since the last nomination, I think that is a very minor matter and there have been fewer issues with them. So basically support per the previous vote. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
7. Support --Vahag (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
8. Support — فين أخاي ^{(تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت)} 21:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
9. Support Roger.M.Williams (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
10. Support --Droigheann (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
11. Support It's about time. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 13:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
12. Support User has made a lot of contributions, and has been here for 3 years. Looks good. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 15:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
13. Support Good contributions. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 03:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
14. Support despite previous behaviour, which isn't so bad. I'm personally not fussed that the username is an initialism of something vulgar, or that they had multiple accounts in the past. Pious Eterino (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
15. Support Yes, yes, yes! ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 07:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Oppose, as before. DonnanZ (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
2. While I greatly appreciate their work on French and other languages, having looked at the previous discussions, unfortunately I'm inclined to Oppose:

   • User:In her mouth was created just six months ago, more than a year after the topic of inappropriate/vulgar sock usernames had already been raised in the 2019 RfA. I also find this edit, made under said username, also a bit puzzling.
   • User:Perce-pucelles (French percer, pucelle) was also created after the 2019 RfA.
   • I also find this comment inappropriate (regardless of the circumstances), especially when made under an IP address.

   Other privileges can be given as necessary, but adminship means blocking rights, which IMO requires generally more professional conduct.--Tibidibi (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   Answering your second point: User:Perce-pucelles was created in 2018, before the nom (see ). The April 2019 edits were made so as to avoid account usurpation, before I got rid of the account (along with a few others). PUC – 08:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Last time, PUC requested a link to User talk:PUC/2017-2018#Adminship for full disclosure; he did not make such a request this time. Everyone voting here should read it. I think there is a danger in giving power to those who are deeply, desperately hungry for it. If he really only wanted to fight vandalism more effectively, he would have asked to become a rollbacker — and I would be happy to nominate him for that. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   I'm not trying to brush that under the carpet, which is why I've asked Imetsia to put a link to the last vote; everything there's to know (not just this issue but the rest too) is there, I think. I of course invite people to read it.

   Regarding you other point, I did use to have the rollback tool. It was originally granted to me on this account, then I switched to another account and asked Chuck Entz to move the rights there. Then I switched back to this account (...), but I didn't want to bother anyone by asking to move the rights again, so I simply make do with the usual revert tool. PUC – 15:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   I feel obliged to revert vandalism whenever I come across it, both here and occasionally on Wikipedia. I don't need to be an admin for that. DonnanZ (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   I don’t recognize him as having exposed reprehensible hunger. He found himself funny by jibing at the etiquette, that’s it. But it is a consistent phenomenon in nature that fewer are sociable than there try to be. Difficult matter, that’s why on the internet I don’t have humour. Fay Freak (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   I don't understand why something that happened three years ago should have any bearing on the outcome of this vote. Looking at the record for the past 2+ years, I can't find indications that he is hungry for power, much less "deeply, desperately hungry" for it. Imetsia (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   @Fay Freak, Imetsia: My conclusion is based in part in private correspondence. Out of respect for @PUC, I will not share any of it unless he consents (which is rather unlikely, of course). (And PUC, if this vote fails, please remind me to get you the rollbacker right.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   @Metaknowledge I am not particularly interested in the content of this private correspondence - I trust your judgment on that - but when did this correspondence take place? Was it 2018, or 2020? That matters a lot to me: I'm inclined to support this nom, simply because my previous reasons to oppose are now so far in the past that I don't feel they're all that relevant anymore. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   @Mnemosientje: It was years ago, yes. I see evidence that he has better, though still imperfect, control over his compulsions, but I don't see evidence that those compulsions have actually gone away. He mentioned the alt account from six months ago, but he was still editing as an IP as recently as December. I would believe he had changed, if he actually had. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   @Metaknowledge: Feel free to share (as long as you don't mention my real name - I don't remember if it was there or not.) I would do it myself but I can't seem to find the email(s?). If I remember correctly, I wrote to you in late 2017/early 2018, a few weeks before the self-nomination. And yes, I was much too eager to become an admin back then, so the self-nom wasn't simply a joke (@Fay Freak). But while I can't say I've become totally indifferent to the prospect, I'm not gagging for it either. PUC – 22:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

   Thank you. I think there is only one sentence that is really germane: "I want the adminship more for the ego-boost it would provide than because I really need the tools (although I do find it annoying not being able to delete blatantly wrong entries and block vandals); and people are wary of people with that kind of motives, as they should be." I am primarily wary for exactly that reason. You're a good editor, and your errors in judgement do not affect your lexicographical work — but sound judgement is central to the non-lexicographical work that admins engage in. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

4. Oppose. This deletionist sockpuppeteer has no business being an admin. Let this illegal-bot-using, request-for-definition entry generator keep doing whatever it is he does. — Dentonius 08:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   Libel. I doubt he has the coding skills to bot; and he deals with difficult idioms therefore creates requests for definition. His sockpuppet usage didn’t transgress the limits of what is permitted and has decreased with age as expected. Plus it’s a contradiction, since if he can keep doing whatever he does then there is nothing to reproach him for. Fay Freak (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   Please choose common sense over your clique. Choosing an admin is an important issue. PUC is the worst candidate I've seen in all the time I've been here. If you want him to be an admin, you might as well ask WF to resume his duties too. — Dentonius 15:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   @Dentonius: What is my clique? And why is it that not I use common sense but you? You just moved to nominate the worst candidate of all time, Dan Polansky, who has less understanding of anything than Wonderfool.

   The Germans have direly corrupted you, taught you to follow some rules or schemes instead of common sense. That’s what all newcomers learn foremost in this country: Fill in all forms you see and exhaust all legal means. Therefore of course such nominees flatter you who just follow orders and process forms and have less profile than a beer coaster. Fay Freak (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   I must say that I like many aspects of German culture. They're very direct and they don't mince words. I'm telling you that making PUC an admin is a bad idea. I assure you that I can keep my personal feelings out of the matter. Based on everything that everyone else has said here, how on earth can you even think to support this guy? He's a troublemaker of a different kind! — Dentonius 16:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   @Dentonius: This appraisal is everything other than direct. Which trouble? Maybe the right dose of trouble, which shows this guy is genuine and not just a decal of your wishful thinking, composed of the blurred ideas which you have recently made with regard to lexicography and its rules? It’s rather you refusing to draw distinct conclusions. Admins are kind of supposed to make trouble to vandalism. Shouting labels like “troublemaker”, ”debaucher”, “racist” is not substantive, actually they are attracting to the persons so denoted because indicating that somebody has character and potential due to being kind of a freethinker. You would need to specifically show that he has qualities which likely entail his performing the job he is nominated to badly, not vaguely “calling out”. Fay Freak (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   But Fay, many of you have rejected good candidates on the basis of personality alone. Let me start there: PUC is neither nice nor impartial. He routinely makes nasty comments. He tried to con the rest of you into becoming an admin by nominating himself with a fake account. We need to shun people like that. I can already see how much he would abuse his authority. If you want to drive more people away from Wiktionary, make that man an admin. Why do you have a problem with labels? You, Fay, for example keep bringing up right wing talking points here on Wiktionary. For what reason, I don't know. If I called you a far right sympathiser, I would be accurate. PUC is a troublemaker. Call a spade a spade. — Dentonius 16:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   "I can keep my personal feelings out of the matter", really? That would be a first. Look, this is starting to get ridiculous again. You're fully entitled to believe that PUC is unfit to have admin rights, but you invoked a really bad reason right off the bat – "This deletionist sockpuppeteer has no business being an admin.". Let me do you one better, Dentonius: you, as a disruptive user, with less than 6 months (!) of active participation, have no right nominating users at random to become admins and you definitely disqualify yourself from participating in votes based on your own inflammatory remarks and volatile actions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   Robbie! It's good to hear from you. Yes, you're absolutely correct. I am a disruptive user. But I recognise that I myself would be unfit for the role of administrator and I would never encourage anyone to nominate me to the position. I love this dictionary. It's helped my language development so much. There are things about Wiktionary which I'd love to change and this often leads to friction between the dominant clique here and me. I've been reprimanded for my views and I've changed my approach as best I can to be less disruptive. Now, when I tell you that a user who has raised all these red flags is undeserving, you should believe me. It takes one to know one. I can see that PUC would abuse that authority. This person has conned you, has trouble commiting to an account, is insulting to other users. Why make him an admin with all those red flags? I don't want to be an admin here so I am free to speak the truth. — Dentonius 17:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   @Dentonius: after our unpleasant exchanges of last year, I vowed never to interact with you again, and to simply ignore you, as I feel it will be more productive for the both of us and for everyone else too. I mean to keep it that way.

   Let me, however, make one last exception to this, as an attempt to clear the air. As I've apologised to Algrif for calling him an idiot, I apologise to you for calling you a troll and a toxic person. Though I still disagree with your ways and much of what you say, I shouldn't have written what I wrote to you, especially not under the guise of an IP.

   I will also respond to one particular item that you mentioned in your vote: I don't use any bot. As Fay Freak noted, I don't have the coding skills to write one. PUC – 13:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

5. Oppose Given all of the information that I have read about this user in the past couple of days, I do not think that this user would make a good administrator. Reading some of the past comments makes me think about a certain user who used to go by the name Opiaterein whose behavior mirrored some of the behvaior of this user. As such, I cannot support this user becoming an administrator. Please note that I do not wish to discuss my vote any further than I already have. Razorflame 16:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
7. Oppose Created an alt account within the last 2 years. DAVilla 17:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
8. Oppose Erratic. Unfit. --{{victar|talk}} 09:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

   @Victar What exactly are the referent and the meaning of "erratic" here? That PUC changes names rather regularly and has or had a habit of using alt accounts is not news, but the use of alt accounts has decreased since the beginning of 2020 ("In her mouth" has been mentioned, and the declared alt "Anus Dei" was used this year). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

   See: Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2019-01/User:Per utramque cavernam for admin. --{{victar|talk}} 18:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

   Thanks for the response. I disagree and think that a criterion against potential mental instability (in this case a de facto criterion rather than one that is codified) can have ableist effects, but I won't bother you further with this. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

9. Oppose I do think PUC is a good editor, but there are too many troubling incidents to look past at this time. I hope this vote motivates them to stay on the straight and narrow and doesn't discourage them from editing. Ultimateria (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

   Ditto, and a name change to something that isn't sexist would be a good start (yeah, I don't want to hear "PUC could stand for anything", we all know what it stands for). --{{victar|talk}} 23:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

10. Oppose Great editor, but his past conduct makes me unwilling to support him. Languageseeker (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
11. Oppose — Saltmarsh. 06:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
12. Oppose --Akletos (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
13. Oppose, largely because PUC clearly hasn't gained the community's trust, given the number of oppose votes. Sysop votes shouldn't be this controversial. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
14. Oppose. He’s a good editor, but I do not want a sodomite & a mini-WF to become a sysop. @Barytonesis, if undoing vandalisms and moving pages is what you want, then you can ask for the rights individually for the time being. Switch over to a single, permanent account and have a respectful name, keep the good behaviour for 3-5 years, then I would be willing to support you the next time you are nominated. -_⸘- inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 18:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

    Are you merely ignorant of what the word sodomite means, or are you actually stupid enough to think that someone's sexual habits have any bearing on their ability to edit Wiktionary? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

    Well, I obviously do not personally know any editors, but when someone mentions about sodomy (regardless of whether one actually is a sodomite; and for the record I called him sodomite sarcastically), it becomes a big thing, you know. -_⸘- inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 20:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

    I have to side with Metaknowledge on this one. Inqilabi, you chose an especially offensive term to describe this dedicated user, who should be able to edit freely without being subject to harsh words like these. I mean, really, mini-WF? What were you thinking? Oxlade2000 (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

    You can take “mini-WF” as a euphemism for a sockpuppet, LOL. -_⸘- inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 20:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

    To be fair, the current user name is an abbreviation of Pas un coiffeur, the famous WF account. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    Inqilābī, that outspoken bigoted opinion is going to get you perma-blocked. --{{victar|talk}} 23:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

    @Inqilābī Your comment is utterly reprehensible. Whatever you may think of PUC, you have no right to insult him or use a slur. I wish that I could give you a short ban as a warning so that you realize that such hateful conduct has no place here or anywhere. Languageseeker (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    A branch of nettles + naked buttocks = education a rude person :V Gnosandes (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    I am shocked to see so much ado about nothing. I only gave him a good advice, nothing else. Why this threatning behaviour towards me‽ Peace, folk, please! 🙏 You need not hate me if you must not take kindly to a few words that I utter. And a few of you have also said I deserve getting blocked for this wee matter. Please be not so childish. Your reactions are not beseeming either. -_⸘- inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 15:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    So I guess you're okay with bigotry, opinionatedness, sexism and, of course, good old-fashioned racism, since homophobia is "much ado about nothing". Really good to know next time it happens to you – it's all just friendly jesting, right? --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    Sodomy is a word with a history that the Wiktionary entry doesn't explain well, look up "sodomy trial" if you really don't know. It's far more than much ado about nothing. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    You people have very easily misunderstood me. I have not outlaughed homosexuality; and even personally I am not against homosexuality. So you really did not get what I meant by sodomy, in sooth?— I meant the mentioning of / allusion to “sodomy” (whatever that word may mean, seeing as it can have manifold connotations; methinks even uttering that word is unacceptable: if so then kindly forgive my culture gap!) in one’s username. As simple as that. Anyway, cheers to all! -_⸘- inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 19:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC) P.S. I was not thinking about homosexuality when I first used that term; and indeed per our definition of sodomy the word only historically referred to homosexuality. -_⸘- inqilābī ^{‹inqilāb·zinda·bād›} 20:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

    Hmm. So you have only a very vague idea about what sodomy can mean (so that calling somebody a sodomite is "only giving them a good advice"), but know perfectly well that PUC is not a respectful name. Ay, right. --Droigheann (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

    If anything, Wiktionary could use more sodomy. Revolutionaries are said to be really into it, so don't knock it till you try it. (But don't put it in your username when you do.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

1. Abstain Before voting I would ask supporters of admin nominations in general and this one in particular to address (1) the Peter principle, which says that good performance in one role does not justify promotion to the next higher role, (2) the principle of least privilege, which says that privileges should be given out based on need, rather than as rewards. Why does this nomination help Wiktionary? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   @Vox Sciurorum: Because I trust his judgment, based on the utterances I have observed from him, it’s not just good performance but the prognosis of good performance. I wasn’t ever thinking in such a simple scheme that good performance entails reward or similar. Fay Freak (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   On top of that, I think PUC merits the admin tools because he would use them, not because they are a prize or a symbol of promotion. He does revert vandalism; there are situations where it would be nice to move a page (without redirect), as he is very active in editing French entries; and he contributes to RFD, so the deletion tools also come in handy. These are three separate ways this nomination helps Wiktionary. Imetsia (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

   As can be seen here (Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2021-01/User:Donnanz for admin), Imetsia is one of the less impressive admins. He tends to favour users who make plenty of RFD nominations, and I was criticised for being the reverse. I now have a policy of not supporting any RFD made by PUC; if I don't vote "Keep", I abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

2. Abstain Bit on the fence here... The whole juvenile User:In her mouth thing (dude, why?) was embarrassingly recent and makes it difficult to really wholeheartedly support the nom. But I see no other real reason to refrain from supporting this time, pace the naysayers. The debacles that made me oppose last time are too long ago to really count anymore imo, and PUC is a pretty good editor who I think could use the tools. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 21:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
3. Abstain great editor, similar objections as above. – Jberkel 13:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

   @Jberkel: These didn't seem to be concerns to you when you voted in the last admin vote. Why are they now? Especially when everyone seems to think that any worrying behaviors have gotten better with time if not been fully resolved. (This is a genuine question, by the way, even if it may come across as a bit rhetorical). Imetsia (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

   I've changed my mind, based on their behaviour. I don't agree things got better. – Jberkel 15:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

4. Abstain --DannyS712 (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
5. Abstain Gnosandes (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

No consensus, 15–14–5. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

As last time, thanks for the votes of confidence, and thanks to Imetsia for the nomination. See you in two years for round 3? PUC – 22:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)