Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2025-02/User:Mellohi! for admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate Mellohi! (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 07:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• Vote created: Svārtava (tɕ) 07:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Acceptance:

• Languages: en-N, fr-2
• Timezone: UTC-5

— Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

1. Support as nominator: long-time and active editor with large number of quality edits. Svārtava (tɕ) 07:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Support most likely not a dumb idea, especially for deletion rights, as guy designed when suggested administratorship. The editor also explains standards to other users, like a good example. Fay Freak (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Support as a net positive to the project: Mellohi! is highly active and makes not only great, productive and well-researched edits but they also participate regularly and courteously in discussions. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Support I respect Mellohi! and their contributions. I expect them to show good judgement. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. Though I hope this doesn't mean Victar is getting indeffed within a day. Thadh (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
6. Support. Always in favor of more admins, unless someone digs up some real dirt. Shouldn't be the case here. Polomo47 (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
7. Support. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
8. Support. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
9. Support. --Davi6596 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
10. Support Binarystep (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
11. Support. Vininn126 (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
12. Support A prolific and long-term contributor who has added countless reconstructions and etymologies. We haven't really crossed paths much but I'm aware of this user and they would make good use of admin tools. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
13. Support Logπ = 0.4971 Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 19:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
14. Support. From my interactions with Mellohi, their judgment is good and I think they would make a good admin. I agree with User:AG202 though that the rationale for adminship should be presented explicitly in the nomination. Benwing2 (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
15. Support Megathonic (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
16. Support my fellow friend of Old Irish and Proto-Celtic, even if we don't always agree. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
17. Support — BABR・talk 19:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
18. Support ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
19. Support —Fish bowl (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
20. Support Alfarizi M (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
21. Support ―⁠MolingLuachra (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

1. Oppose Per the abstain votes. I have 7,000+ edits and have never seen him, which makes me question whether he has enough experience. Purplebackpack89 03:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

   Wouldn't it be more appropriate to abstain than oppose in that case? Ultimateria (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

2. Oppose. ɶLerman (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose Vindictive and petty, prone to emotional edits and ad hominem attack; this user lacks the decorum becoming an admin. Hard no. --{{victar|talk}} 05:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

1. Abstain. I don't know the user well enough. Imetsia (talk (more)) 19:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Abstain never seen this guy! Father of minus 2 (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Abstain. Our paths have never crossed. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Abstain. I do wish that we got in the habit of putting why this user was nominated and why they want to become an admin within the vote itself. I see on Mellohi!'s talk page User talk:Mellohi! § Adminship that they want to become admin to help with the RFD backlog + get AWB access to replace wikilinks after a pagemove, which are good rationales. However, all the recent nominations, including my own, remind me of when Wonderfool would nominate any old active user (including myself!). It makes me continue to question if adminship is simply supposed to be an expected destination for unproblematic active users. AG202 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

   Having a rationale is not actually a bad idea for future nominations. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

   @AG202: If I may, I think there are plenty of reasons for Mellohi to be admin - his recent work with reconstructed languages both gives him the need to move pages and create language codes. Our reconstructions and etymology sections are also a frequent target of both incompetent users and vandals, something which Mellohi has shown in the past to be able to handle quite reasonably and calmly.

   As for you, your recent interactions with new users led me to believe that you would be an ideal admin in that respect, having the possibility to guide and, in the worst case scenario, deal with users that have trouble adapting to our untraditional workplace. You also work with minority languages, so your expertise on RFs is very valued.

   However, I don't think that voters should explain the rationale - had you accepted a vote, I hope I would include one in the vote description, but I do think that candidates should choose for themselves whether they think they would be a good admin, that's the main thing. In your case, that was apparently not something you were looking for. In Mellohi's, it apparently is. At that point, where both the proposer has seen something in the candidate, and the candidate has seen something in themselves, I think it's just a matter of whether or not we trust that the candidate will use these tools and use them for good. Thadh (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

   @Thadh: Apologies for the late response, but thank you, I appreciate it, and that clears things up a lot for me. AG202 (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

   Woop! Name check! Father of minus 2 (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

5. Abstain. Haven't interacted with him enough to make an informed decision either way. Whoop whoop pull up ^{♀️ Bitching Betty 🏳️‍⚧️ Averted crashes ⚧️} 01:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
6. Abstain. I don't know the user well enough to decide whether he has enough experience. Chihunglu83 (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
7. Abstain, neither do I. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Passed: 21-3-7. Svārtava (tɕ) 04:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)